Dear Baba Kadiri: Shalom!
I don't want to fight with you, you are my best friend, in some areas my mentor and my Baba.
Praise be to Almighty God and many thanks for the long-winded, boastful octogenarian description of your perfect set of shiny white teeth and please take note that you're not the only one who uses a miswak // siwak which in the Krio language is known as chaw-stick (chew-ing stick) after using which you may be better at chewing your bones.
And, "you may smile, and smile, and be a villain!"
I trust that perchance you have read Syl Cheney-Coker's "The Graveyard Also Has Teeth: With Concerto for an Exile..."
As I told you on the phone this evening, I'm sure that I have suffered racism more than you have and as you know, I'm not a shuffering & shmiling type of fellow but you have yet to see me foaming at the mouth because some oyibo bombaclat neo-Nazi cracker who doesn't even know who his father is thinks that "Nigger" is Franz Heinrich Hamelberg's first name or some really ugly, silly, toothless, semi-literate bombaclat neo-Nazi old lady who doesn't know who her father is, wants to know why I don't want to go back to "my country", as if I'm a refugee and I come from her toy-boy's country, Afghanistan.
Just for the theatrics, please Baba Kadiri I beseech thee to tell us what happened when you were told that Africans don't have to wash their hands. It was priceless!
But, of course you don't have to, if you don't want to
This was my song on my way back home to Sweden (from Nigeria) and the plane wasn't moving fast enough: My love is waiting
--Menahem Hamelberg,
When truth hits hypocrites, they behave helplessly like a cobra in the forest whose body is invaded by black ants, causing it to twist and wobble aimlessly. It is observed that on Thursday, 25 March 2021, you posted three different responses at 00:42 am, 02:51 am and 12:10 pm, to a single rejoinder of mine dated 24 March 2021. Don't you sleep at night or did my response cause you a sleepness night? I read through your circumvolutory responses that failed to address the issue of racism which Prince Harry and Meghan Markle claimed to have suffered within the British Royal Family. In your response at 00:42 am, you asked, "Why all this foaming at the mouth?" For as long as you have known me, you have never seen me foam either on my lips or from my mouth. Most of my age mates, especially the Caucasians, wear dental tooth. In fact, there had been occassions when I was asked which dentist had fixed my denture only for me to reply that my tooth are natural. Long before the arrival of the colonialists and the invention of tooth brush in Europe, the Yoruba part of Africa had what was called PÁKÒ or ÕRÍN, roughly translated to chewing stick and which is chewed to brush the tooth clean. There are many varieties of chewing sticks and some were even known to prevent caries, toothache and tartar. Right from primary one in the school in those days, we used to line up in the morning to show our teacher that our finger nails were well manicured and we had to open our mouths for teacher's inspection to certify our clean tooth. Specific for the tooth, we were taught as children to sing in Yoruba : Akókóró mábá eyín mi jé; Mo jí mó run orín; Jeyínjeyín mámà bámi jà; Mó bu omin yó'nu; Inú kíkún pèlú êbì ródoródo; Lódò omó t'ojí tó pé ki otó rún õrín. Roughly translated to English : Toothache, don't damage my tooth; I wake up to chew my stick; Caries, don't afflict me; I rinse my mouth with water; Constipation and vomit await a child that wakes up and keeps late to chew stick. So, Menahem Hamelberg the probability of me foaming at the mouth, even today, is still zero.
At 02:51 am, 25 March 2021, you informed the forrum thus, "Well, here is some more history : The father of my father's mother was an Englishman. And I returned to Sierra Leone on a British Passport." The essence and relevance of that information of yours became clear in your earlier post at 00:42 am, of the same date, where you asked, "Should I disown my ancestry? When I humbly declare that *I know my British history fairly well,* ...//... I'm only claiming some affection..." No one in his sane mind will ever request anyone to disown his/her ancestry. In the case of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle who were subjected to racist attacks by the Royal Family, one will be right to request a claimant to English ancestry to dissociate self from the Nazi policy as practised by the Royal Family. Instead of dissociating yourself from the Royal Family's Nazism, you went on to equate Meghan Markle to a chimpanzee taken out the jungle into Buckingham Palace who continued to behave as she used to do in the jungle and who could not adapt to Windsor Castle decorum. Yet, we know from history (gossip if you prefer) that the first thing Nazi Germany did, was to equate all none Aryan races to animals, which was why Dr. Josef Mengele and a packet of German physicians could perform all kinds of experiments on humans, they reduced to animals, at Auschwitz and Buchenwald. With your expression, you seem to believe that having married to Prince Harry, Meghan Markle should consider herself lucky and be grateful by adapting hundred per cent to Windsor Castle's protocol. In 1965, Pierre Berton confronted Malcolm X with the question about if he was still opposed to integration and intermarriage. Malcolm X replied, "I believe in recognizing every human being as a human being - neither white, black, brown or red; and when you are dealing with humanity as a family there's no question of integration or intermarriage. It's just one human being marrying another human being, or one human being living around with another human being (p.197, Malcolm X Speaks)." Prince Harry is a human being that got married to another human being called Meghan Markle. Conversely equal and true, Meghan Markle is a human being that got married to one Prince Harry, another human being. Marriage is always a case of reciprocal love, a game of give and take from both sides.
Referring to me, you wrote, "Yoy have a pechant for disturbing the peace and tranquillity in this forum." Well, I am not a playwright and even if I were, this forum is not where to display it. However, those who think that this forum is a place to demonstrate their ability to blow flawless English and exhibit their theatrical antics must feel that their peace and tranquillity are being disturbed whenever I wake them up to the reality of life. The global politics and economy are built on racism and whenever we, the victims of political and economic racism, talk about it, we are accused of being hypersensitive, not only by our traducers but even, by our own intellectuals who should be in the forefront of the battle against racism. I will never pretend that there is no racism and that is why I always react whereever it comes up. About thirty years ago, I was at a restaurant with my wife. Since we knew in advance that chicken was going to be part of the menu, my wife pleaded with me not to crack the bone of the chicken with my tooth as I used to do at home. I told her that the bone marrow was more delicious to me than the flesh on the leg of the chicken, and as such I told her I was not going to abide by her counsel. We were served and I rapidly gnawed at the flesh of the chicken and set the bone between my tooth and crushed it. A Caucasian sitting nearby that I have never known rose from his seat to stand in my front. He had the effontry to ask me what dogs eat in Africa (as if Africa is a country) because I cracked assunder chicken bone with my tooth. I rose up from my seat and my wife thought I was going to wipe his face but I disappointed her. I opened my mouth wide and shouted CH-EE-SE, that is what dogs eat in Africa. Silently, he walked back to his seat without turning back. I regarded the man's query to me as racist but my wife thought it might be out of jealousy since it was likely that the man was plastic-toothed. Whatever might have been the cause of the Caucasian query to me, I saw racism and reacted against it. Prince Harry and Meghan suffered racism in the Royal Family and no one should discountenance or belittle their lived experience.S. Kadiri
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelberg@gmail.com>
Sent: 27 March 2021 01:17
To: USA Africa Dialogue Series <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Oprah - Meghan MarkleinterviewonSundayMarch 7 - and Royal meltdownHistory : latest update ( positive gossip" - from Mozilla News Beat:
"Royal Roles. Welp, didn't see this one coming. Prince Harry, Meghan Markle's husband and Duke of Sussex, now works in tech. The prince revealed his two new jobs this week. One being a commissioner at the Aspen Institute in D.C., where he'll help study the state of mis- and disinformation. The other being his new role as Chief Impact Officer at BetterUp, a San Francisco mental health and personal coaching company. The news is real but, we've gotta say, "British prince takes his talents to Silicon Valley" sounds like the premise of a fantastic made-for-TV movie. | via NBC News
On Thursday, 25 March 2021 at 12:10:53 UTC+1 Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
Baba Kadiri,
This also concerns your "good conscience". the tremendous fuss you make about "The faith" and Faith and your erstwhile lengthy, learned school master's deliberation on the history and significance of the term "Defender of the Faith" etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam, and your equally learned question about "What has marriage between Prince Harry of the United Queendom of Britain and Meghan Markell of the United States of America got to do with Judaism and Hebrew language? And that as you say, you" you just can't see any connection." - i-e., what has their marriage got to do with the Bible – with Adam & Eve….
To begin with, I would like to kindly remind you that they got married in church:
Full Ceremony: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's royal wedding
and that they made the following vow to each other:
"I give you this ring as a sign of our marriage. With my body, I honour you, all that I am I give to you and all that I have I share with you within the love of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
I suppose that you have some opinions to express about that too, that Meghan omitted the tradition "to obey " - that "to obey" was not part of the language vow that Meghan took. Thereby departing from Paul's homily in his epistle to the Ephesians, Ephesians 5:22 – 24 to wit:
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (King James Version)
Don't be shy. Please feel free to comment to your heart's content about how the King James Version came into being and whether or not the modern, innovative Meghan was conforming to the traditional Royal norm by adapting to acting like the Romans and the Romance in her own special way.
" Obey" rings a bell ...belle
BTW, I'm looking forward to Sunday's Interview with my Yourna Idol Chief Commander Ebenezer Obey and I'm sure that for a change you agree with me that this is a good wedding song: What God has Joined Together Let No man Put Asunder
I haven't taken up some of your other scurrilous points yet, but I'm sure that there's something that you want to say, so I pause for a reply
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 at 21:42, Salimonu Kadiri <ogunl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Oh Menahem Hamelberg,My good conscience will never permit me to kiss you lie instead of kissing you with truth. You stated interalia : You (Salimonu Kadiri) have a problem; I (Cornelius Hamelberg) know my British history fairly well. My emphases are in brackets. From the above two cited sentences of yours, it is obvious that a problem you imagined me to have is, not knowing that you, Cornelius Hamelberg, are a Briton who knows his British history fairly well (I know my British history fairly well - Cornelius Hamelberg). You can be a Briton without being a Caucasian and you can be a Judaist, even a radicalised one, without being neither a Jew or Hebrew (I think the Jews or Hebrews are anthropologically classified as Caucasian even though Europeans before and after World War II labelled them Asians who should not be allowed to dilute their blood with European blood). Of course, I have no reason to envy you if you honestly believe yourself to be a Briton.
Much of what you (Salimonu Kadiri) call history is gossip - Menahem Cornelius Hamelberg.
Your British history which you claimed to know fairly well cannot be dissociated from history of racism which Prince Harry and Meghan Markel they have surffered within the British Royal Family in year 2021. It is not a gossip that human beings in the world are divided into White, Black, Red and Yellow; and it is not a gossip that the Whiteman is the allocator of racial colour to humans. By referring to other humans as coloured people, the Whitemen regard themselves as colourless. It is not a gossip that humans are racially classified as, Caucasian, Mongolloid and Negroid by the Whiteman. It is not a gossip that a child parented by a White person and an anthropological African is called a Mulatto by the Whiteman; and a child parented by a Mulatto and a White person is called Quardroon by the Whiteman; and a child parented by a Quardroon and a White person is called Octroon by the Whiteman. Remarkably is that, it is only children parented between the anthropological African and the White person that are given racists identities even up to the fiftieth generation. It is not a gossip that Arthur de Gobineau was the author of ' An Essay on Inequality Between Races, from which German Nazi racial doctrine sprung. It was not a gossip that Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. It was not a gossip that Henry Fairchild Osborn of the USA received the Goethe medal from Adolf Hitler in 1934. It was not a gossip that Henry Ford of the USA authored the book, "The International Jew." It was not a gossip that Hitler's governed Germany started World War II, built his gas-chamber at Auschwitz to exterminate the inferior races and erected his Hospital at Buchenwald where inferior races were exposed to painful and dangerous experiments. That a German medical practitioner, Dr Joseph Mengele, performed experiments on non-aryan humans at the concentration camps was not a gossip. That Nazi Germany racist regime was defeated in 1945 was not a gossip. That the four victorious powers, Soviet Union, USA, Britain and France set up international Tribunal at Nuremberg to try surviving German Nazi leaders for their crime of deploying racism to advance national political and economic interests was not a gossip. That I. T. Nikitchenko and A. F. Volchkov (Soviet Union); Francis Biddle and John J. Parker (USA); Lord Justice William Norman Birkett and Lord Justice Geoffrey Lawrence (Great Britain); and Donndieu de Vabres and Robert Falco (France) sat as Judges in the trial of the Nazists that began in Nuremberg on 20 November 1945 was not a gossip. That the four power Chief prosecutors in the trial of the Nazists were Roman Rudenko (Soviet Union), Robert Jackson (USA), Sir Hartley Shawcross (Great Britain), and Francois de Menthon (France, replaced with Auguste Champetier de Ribes in January 1946) was not a gossip. It was not a gossip that the Defence lawyer of the Nazi ideologue, Dr Alfred Rosenberg, objected to the trial of the Nazists on the ground that the racial war perpetrated by Nazi Germany was less racist than the racial war of annihilations that converted USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to Whiteman's countries. And it was not a gossip that on October 1, 1946, at 14:50:00 hours judgments on German Nazi leaders were pronounced whereby 12 of them were sentenced to death, seven were sentenced to life imprisoment and three were acquitted. It was not a gossip that the world believed that the judgment on the Nazists was the final nail on the coffin of racists and the end of racism in the world.
The world has, since 1946, known better which is why in 2021, the world is still groaning over racism, even in the Queendom of Britain as experienced by Meghan Markel because she happens to contain in her blood stream, a 50% anthropological African blood. "I know my British history fairly well", you boasted. Well, may I inform you that I have read the history of Africa's colonizers too which happens to be part of your British history. I did not set out to correct your British history as you assumed but to bring out relevant aspect of racism as far as Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markel, are concerned. In your submission dated 15 March 2021 on this topic, you stated, "To begin with, our dear radical Prince Charles, the future King of Britain more or less abolished the title, *defender of the faith* and replaced it long ago with a new, more inclusive title: *Defender of Faith* - It caused quite a stir at the time coming on the heels of his Oxford address on al-Islam." Three days later, 18 March 2021, you averred in your post, "Fact is, that he (Prince Charles) recanted the idea of *Defender of Faith* and reverted to the old order formula, *Defender of THE FAITH* once again ... If your submission on Monday, 15 March 2021, that your radical Prince Charles, more or less, abolished the title *defender of the faith* and replaced it with *Defender of Faith,* is correct, how then could you somasault on 18 March 2021 to conclude that the same Prince Charles recanted the idea of *Defender of Faith* and reverted to the old order formula, *Defender of THE FAITH?* Did you not say that Prince Charles invented *Defender of Faith* which was new and more inclusive? I am not in doubt that you know your British history fairly well, nevertheless, I beg for your indulgence to narrate the background history of the title, *Defender of the Faith.* As you already know, the son of King Henry VII, Arthur the Prince of Wales, was married to Catherine of Aragon. Unfortunately, Prince Arthur died on April 2, 1502, barely six months after their marriage but Henry VII kept his son's widow, Catherine, within the Royal Family. Henry VII himself died on 21 April 1509, and his son, Prince Henry, was to be crowned Henry VIII. Before his corronation he married his brother's widow, Cathrine of Aragon on 11 June 1509, 17 days before he was to be eighteen. Pope Leo X, born Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici, was Pope from 9 March 1513 to 1 December 1521. It was not a gossip that Pope Leo X granted the title, Fidei Defensor to Henry VIII on 11 October 1521 for writing a pamplet in defence of the Roman Catholic faith against the teaching of Martin Luther. Fidei Defensor has since 1521 been adopted by each succeding King/Queen as their title, translated into English as Defender of the Faith. It was not a gossip that Henry VIII was a serial monogamist. He sought the annulment of his marriage to Queen Catherine of Aragon in 1509 because of lack of a male child to succeed him on the throne. King Henry VIII claimed that his marriage to Queen Catherine of Aragon infringed on Leviticus Chapter 20 verse 21 that says, "And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness." But since God's penalty for breaking that law is "they shall be childless," and King Henry VIII and Catherine had female children, Pope Clement VII rejected the application of Henry VIII to divorce Queen Catherine. Pope Clement VII dumped Leviticus 20 :21, as cited by King Henry VIII, and adhered instead to Deuteronomy 25 : 5-7 which explicitly laid down 'the duty of a husband's brother' towards the later's childless widow which is, he 'shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife' so that his dead brother's name 'be not put out of Israel'; severe penalties were to be imposed upon anyone who failed to do this. Henry VIII and Britain broke away from the Pope and Roman Catholic Church and the rest is not gossip but history.
In your two posts of 15 March 2021, you blamed Meghan Markel for failing to adjust to Windsor Castle's decorum and you accused her of being in Rome and not doing as the Romans. You illustrated the reason why Meghan Markel could not adapt herself to Windsor Castle's decorum thus : You can take the chimpazee out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the monkey or the chimpanzee. For telling that truth, you implied, is not racism!! Can you please narrate exactly what Meghan Markel has done to justify your portrayal of her as maladjusted to the decorum of Windsor Castle and to justify your indirect comparison of her with chimpanzee taken out of the jungle but from whom jungle cannot be taken away? I appreciate your claim that you are darker than me and Meghan, even if I have my doubt about that claim of yours. However, your attack on Meghan Markel, to me, is a reminiscence of what Lord Lugard in his book: THE DUAL MANDATE IN BRITISH TROPICAL AFRICA called, "the Europeanised African" who "is indeed separated from the rest of the (African) people by a gulf which no racial affinity can bridge. He must be treated - and seems to desire to be treated - as though he were of different race." When Meghan Markel was attacked within the British Royal family because her body consists 50% of the blood of anthropological African, it is the duty of every genuine Blackman, as you claimed to be, to defend the 50% African blood in her which the British Royal Family, not Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philips, has declared a poisonous dillution of the British Royal Blood. In volume II of his 1928 book : The Native Problem in Africa, Leslie Raymond Buell observed lack of solidarity among the Africans against their persecutors and oppressors. Forty years later, Winthrop D. Jordan expressed it more crudely in his book :WHITE OVER BLACK, that when it comes to solidarity, Chimpanzees are better than Negroid Africans because an attack on a Chimpanzee always attract the collective response of the entire flock of the Chimpanzees against the attacker(s). On the other hand, whenever a Negroid African is attacked by an alien force, the rest just look on unconcerned. This is why, he explained, it has always been easy to capture Negroid Africans one by one. Those who hate the 50% Negroid blood in Meghan Markel automatically hate you, me and us with 100% Negroid Blood. In your defence of your Buckingham Palace, you provided a link that to show that Buckingham Palace had issued a statement about the Royal Family's racism, but the statement did not deny that worries had been expressed about the darckness of the colour of the skin of yet to be born child of Prince Harry and Meghan Markel.
Finally, I have not set out to correct anything you have written as you assumed. I have placed my facts beside yours, as I always do with others, and I owe you no appology if my facts prove yours to be mere bluff. Concerning my assertion that the history of British Monarchy preceded the advent of internet, it was in reply to the poetic miscreant who urged you not to rehash what he termed *your Baba Kadiri's royal family history* which according to him is on the internet.S.Kadiri
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com <usaafric...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com>
Sent: 18 March 2021 00:55
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Oprah - Meghan MarkleinterviewonSundayMarch 7 - and Royal meltdownBaba Kadiri,
You have a problem, I know my British history fairly well. From 1066 – to 1485, the history of the British Empire during the reign of Queen Victoria, through both wars to the present day, and some of the literary output produced within that time frame. Don't forget, Patrick White was Australian.
Much of what you call history is gossip. There's much of the actual history of Sierra Leone, Ghana and Nigeria that has not yet surfaced in any of the history books and doctoral dissertations that have been written so far, and there are dossiers that probably never will see the light of day. How do I know? I know. Have I read all the history books and PhD dissertations and dossiers about say the last 65 years covering the history of Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria or the last 80 years of Sweden for that matter? Of course not, but there are missing pieces which have been buried forever and which even Michael Crowder or Scott Thompson has not written about..
You are fond of referring to all kinds of people as "Goebbels" and "hogwash. I am not. When I said in ordinary Buckingham Palace English that Prince Charles had "more or less" abolished the title "Defender of Faith" I did not think that I was dogmatically stating a Gradgrindian fact, even if "DEFENDER OF FAITH" had originally been written in stone, like The TEN COMMANDMENTS. (And who among us mortals can change them? I mean the ten Commandments. More accurately, to satisfy the sophist in you I suppose that I should have said that dear Prince Charles had repudiated or was only proposing to repudiate that title (since he is not yet the reigning monarch who is the only one (according to you) who I suppose has the authority to do so – whether or not to be ratified by an act of Parliament, I don't know. What I do know is that Dear Prince Charles did make that radical proposal " Defender of Faith" which caused quite a stir at the time when said that, and this happened shortly either before or after his famous Oxford lecture on Islam which also caused quite a stir, to the extent that some of his subjects far and wide were wondering if he had become a Muslim or a covert Muslim. Fact is, that he recanted the idea of "Defender of Faith" and reverted to the old order formula, "Defender of THE FAITH" once again, as is clear from a cursory search on the world wide web. (Certain very contemporary types of news/ gossips get into the history books a little later, when historians and gossip mongers write about them ( current, contemporary news items) in the past tense. For instance in the past few years I have followed this running commentary Porter's Pensées ( by history Professor Bernard Porter, although I don't see eye to eye with all his socialistic views about everything and his crusade against Boris Johnson ( You could take as look at what he has to say about the Meghan – Harry affair)
If what you have set out to do is to correct my opinions, whilst you are at it for your own edification you had better look up the meaning of these three words:
YOU "just can't see any connection" where I see connections because we see things differently. Your parochial and literary mind is certainly a different wind-angled mind from mine as you have just admitted, and mine is also different from yours, through no fault of mine. Remember now, it was King Solomon who said I'm Black and beautiful in Chapter 1 verse 5 of his Song of Songs, long before Christopher Columbus discovered America or James Brown started doing the Bugaboo and the Mashed Potato.
I have no intention to discuss any Hebrew or Arabic meanings of Adam, I don't know how you got your education about that kind of discussion – and I'm not about to engage your superior Rabbinic understandings because, there are certain things I don't waste my time discussing with just everybody, especially not an ignoramus like me. I know no Yoruba, talk less about gematria or the allusive poetry of your chimpanzee.
In response to your your long-winded third paragraph, I'll be brief and just say this:
Harry tasted Meghan's Black Magic – she gave him The Royal Treatment. Baba Kadiri, I'm sure that you must have received or been subjected to THE ROYAL TREATMENT?
Harry sang Purple Haze! He moaned. He must have told William, "Whatever it is, that girl put a spell on me!"
The rest is history.
If you are feeling studious you can as you say read all about it. All you've got to do is take your own advice: " The history of British Monarchy preceded the advent of internet and facts contained in history books may not be found in the Google or Wikipedia. For the intellectually lazy, internet can be a short way of acquiring partial knowledge while for the intellectually active, internet is a complement to reading books. As I will show later, even what is found in the Google can be falsified or be distorted intentionally by a Googler to tally with the opinion of the Googler self" (The Bible According to Baba Kadiri )
Harry and Meghan were not specific about who said what about the colour of their yet unborn baby. Maybe you should check out the meaning of the word "Specific" Lie detector tests are not that reliable either.
Since Buckingham Palace issued this statement on the allegations of racism how can you in good conscience say that " Since silence is consent, the silence of the Royal Family over the racist attack on Harry and Meghan remains true."?
You should be ashamed of yourself gleefully spreading all kinds of salacious, mischievous and malicious reports about other people's private lives….
I was just getting down to a very personal response to Oga Falola's Conversation with Bishop Kukah when I noticed that Baba Kadiri was on the warpath once again and that this time it was me for whom the bell is tolling.
As Slick Willy once famously said, "I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people.", so Cornelius Ignoramus now says, please Baba Kadiri, let me get back to listening carefully to Alagba Falola and Bishop Kukah of Sokoto., so that I will know what I'm responding to...
Something of possible interest to you ( ( I suppose that you will probably want to correct some of this history : RECONSTRUCTING THE PAST TO RECONSTRUCT THE PRESENT: The Nineteenth Century Wars and Yoruba History by FUNSO S. AFOLAYAN
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 at 21:31, Salimonu Kadiri <ogunl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The history of British Monarchy preceded the advent of internet and facts contained in history books may not be found in the Google or Wikipedia. For the intellectually lazy, internet can be a short way of acquiring partial knowledge while for the intellectually active, internet is a complement to reading books. As I will show later, even what is found in the Google can be falsified or be distorted intentionally by a Googler to tally with the opinion of the Googler self. From the perspective of a radicalised African Judaist, he averred, "To begin with, our dear radical Prince Charles, the future King of Britain more or less abolished the title, 'Defender of the Faith' and replaced it long ago with a new, more inclusive title : 'Defender of Faith.' The title, *Defender of the Faith* actually reflects the Sovereign position of the Queen/King, as the head of the Church of England which makes him/her to be superior to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. The title, Defender of the Faith originated as far back as 1533 when the Pope refused to grant Henry VIII permission to divorce his wife, Queen Chaterine of Aragon. That precipitated the Act of Supremacy that made King Henry VIII the Supreme Head of Church of England and free from Rome and the Catholic Church. As of today, Prince Charles is neither the *Defender of the Faith* nor *Defender of Faith.* The real and the only *Defender of the Faith* and Head of the Church of England now is Queen Elizabeth II. Thus, it constitutes Goebbels' hogwash, even by a praise singer, to claim that Prince Charles has abolished and replaced *Defender of the Faith* with *Defender of Faith.* Prince Charles can abolish the, *Defender of the Faith* or replace it with *Defender of Faith* after ascending the throne.
The radicalised African Judaist informed us, "Adam means dark clay; Adam does not mean *White*." What has marriage between Prince Harry of the United Queendom of Britain and Meghan Markel of the United States of America got to do with Judaism and Hebrew language? I just can't see any connection. And when I took the trouble to check the link from where it is said that Adam means dark clay, I found out that the name Adam is derived from the Hebrew noun Adamah, meaning ground or earth. Reading further, somewhere else, it is said that Adam in Hebrew means Red Clay or Red ground. Earlier we were referred to Genesis 1 : 27 to teach us that God created male and female in his own image and thenceforth, we have to believe that God is a hermaphrodite. What a useful knowledge to make us understand why the British Royal Family should worry about the skin colour of the would-be child between Prince Harry and Meghan, since the latter is product of biracial intercourse between a Caucasian and an anthropological African.
.... but still left wondering why having fallen in love with Prince Harry, she expected her change of status and environment to be more a continuation of her Beverly Hills in accordance with her usual twitter account standards and less of the Windsor Castle decorum expected of her as "Duchess of Sussex." Surely, she knows about "When in Rome do as the Romans, " - Cornelius Hamelberg. Certainly, there is no evidence that Meghan Markle seduced Prince Harry with a made in Sierra Leone or Africa love charm. That the handsome and thinly gap-tooted Prince Harry, ignored all the princesses and white model girls in Europe to engage with Meghan Markel, must be considered reciprocity of love between the two couples. It was not a case of Meghan falling in love with Harry, it was fifty-fifty love from each side and they, from the beginning accepted one another's good and bad qualities. The Windsor decorum expected Meghan to wear those funny hats Princesses used to wear in Britain and we saw her wearing hats, even more stylishly. According to both Harry and Meghan, the former wife of Prince Andrew, who is now cohabiting with him, Sarah Ferguson, trained Meghan in royal etiquettes and courtesies, including how to bend the knees while greeting either the Queen or her husband. The problem was not that Meghan did not do as the Romans when in Rome. Rather, the problem is that the Romans did not like the colour of the skin of Meghan who is behaving like Romans.
As things are now, you are taking everything at face value, their vague and not so specific accusations without even hearing anything from the unnamed people that they accuse - Cornelius Hamelberg.The most serious accusation against the Royal Family is their racist worry about the pollution of the Royal blood by the child of Harry and Meghan. That is specific and not vague. Since silence is consent, the silence of the Royal Family over the racist attack on Harry and Meghan remains true. That Meghan and Harry did not name their traducers in the Royal Family was tactical and intelligent. They do not want to burn and destroy the bridge between them and the Royal Family, and it is wise to leave room for amendments and future reconciliation.
When someone says, "You can take the Chimpanzee out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the monkey or the chimpanzee" he or she is accused of racism for merely telling the truth - Cornelius Hamelberg. Cornelius' analogy of a chimpanzee being taken out of the jungle but can be detached of its jungle behaviour seems to classify Meghan Markel as a Chimpanzee from the jungle whose behaviour is jungle-like and not fit for the Royal Family. And when she is told that, the supposedly 'truth teller' is accused of racism. Meghan Markel, just like any human being, including Cornelius Hamelberg, did not decide, and could not have decided, who were to be her paternal and maternal parents. No human-being ever chose his or her parents. When Meghan moved from the US jungle to the Windsor Castle, anyone wishing her to shelve her biological and physiological heritage from her parents should be confined to mental hospital. You can move Meghan Markel into Windsor Castle but you cannot remove the colour of her skin!!
Whilst the Lady Diana revisited saga is now a recurring phrase in the dialogue about the scandalous Harry and Meghan Oprah interview, PRINCE HARRY MARRYING A DIVORCEE (MEGHAN) etc... - Cornelius Hamelberg. If the marriage between Prince Harry and Meghan Markel, a divorcee, is a scandal according to Cornelius Hamelberg, then the greatest of all scandals should be the marriage, on 9 April 2005, between Prince Charles and the menopaused divorced mother of two children, Camilla Parker Bowles. The Royal Family said that the blood of Meghan is a pollution in the Royal blood and Conelius Hamelberg says that Prince Harry's marriage to Meghan, a divorcee, is a scandal. I disagree with both as propagators of nonsense.S. Kadiri
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com <usaafric...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Chidi Anthony Opara, FIIM <chidi...@gmail.com>
Sent: 16 March 2021 10:45
To: USA Africa Dialogue Series <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Oprah - Meghan MarkleinterviewonSundayMarch 7 - and Royal meltdownMazi Cornelius,Your Baba Kadiri's rehash of royal family "history" here is unnecessary. That "history" is on the internet.
-CAO.
On Tuesday, 16 March 2021 at 05:41:30 UTC+1 yagb...@hotmail.com wrote:
Let me add that the Royal Family must be separated from the Institution of Monarchy comprising in addition the courtiers and the staff.
We must remember it was HRH the Prince of Wales who acted as both father of bride and groom on wedding day when the biological father of the bride was nowhere to be found to perform his traditional obligation, handing Meghan over to his son. So how more welcoming could the Royal Family have been.
The idea that the Royal Family could have been expecting a ' whiter than white' baby from the couple is not only ludicrous but an insult on the intelligence of the whole Royal Family. Yes, any of the courtiers could have made the racist comment in dispute with Meghan, we cannot rule that out.
Again, back to constitution of the British Monarchy before contemporary times. In the past it used to be composed of ruling houses like the Yoruba Monarchies, such as the Plantagenets, the Tudors and the Lancaster ruling houses and not just one house through premogenitor such as the house of Windsor.
OAA
Sent from my Galaxy
-------- Original message --------From: Cornelius Hamelberg <cornelius...@gmail.com>Date: 16/03/2021 04:03 (GMT+00:00)Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Oprah - Meghan MarkleinterviewonSundayMarch 7 - and Royal meltdown
This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (cornelius...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule | More info
After talking to Baba Kadiri last night, we agreed that there's no denying the seriousness in any accusation of racism, no matter where it occurs or is alleged to have occurred or is occurring. What we know beyond any doubt is that Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II and Prince Phillip have been very gracious, welcoming and loving to Prince Harry, his wife Meghan Markle the Duchess of Sussex, and their lovely son Archie.
May the Almighty nourish, guide, protect bless them all
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 03:18, Salimonu Kadiri <ogunl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Concerning the racial attacks on Harry/Meghan in the 'United Queendom of Britain,' Chidi Anthony Opara admonished Biko, "Think of the very idea of blue blood and red blood, royalty and commoner." It is not the belief that the blood of the King/Queen is blue while the blood of the masses is red that is contentious as Kojo queried, "Who seriously believes that the Queen of England is God's rep on earth or *defender of the faith*? and which faith?" To begin with, the idea of royal blood being blue is a myth just as the assertion that the King/Queen of England is God's representative on earth. The two myths were disproved on January 30, 1649, when King Charles 1 was decapitated for treason having proclaimed define rights of ruling and himself as representative of God on earth. On that fateful 30 January 1649, the leader of the Parliament and who was a general during the civil war, Oliver Cromwell, soaked white glove he wore on his right hand with the blood of the decapitated King Charles 1. Appearing on the balcony of Westminster, Oliver raised his right hand with the blood-soaked glove and told the crowd, 'Look at my hand, this is the blood of the King, it is not blue, it is red just like yours and mine.' The British crowd cheered Oliver Cromwell. Since then, no King/Queen of England ever claimed blue blood and absolute divine rights of ruling. James II who attempted to re-introduce the absolute divine rights of ruling was chased out of the throne into exile in Spain.
Justifying why there should be monarchy (royal institution), Dr Oohay postulates that, "All humans are DIFFERENTLY equal. Ironically no one wants to be equal to anyone below him or her. Treating all (regardless of their differences) as equals will result in more inequalities." Of course, all humans are differently equal but differences in equality is what leads to interdependency between humans. Exemplifying why humans are not equal we have been told that Professor Falola is not equal to his students, even when we know, practically, that Falola must depend on his students in order to be a professor. Likewise, his students must depend on him in order to learn. Talent is useless, in the absence of a place to display it. Besides that, is a professor of English equal to a, professor of chemistry, physics, bio-chemistry, pharmacology, medicine, etc? Is a medical doctor superior to a farmer even when the MD is dependent on the food produced by the farmer to live much as the farmer depends on the MD for treatment when sick? Generally, whenever exploiters want the exploited folks to accept their exploitations as something natural and not man-made, they say, fingers are not equal. While it is visually and physically true that the five fingers on each human hand are not equal in length, yet, each finger has its specific role to play in holding or gripping objects. Thus, if a finger is missing in a hand, the gripping ability of that hand is reduced and the person with four fingers is said to be handicapped. In reality, all the five fingers on a human hand depend on one another in order to attain normal function and since each of the five fingers plays different roles in holding and gripping objects, no finger, despite differences in lengths, is superior to the other. Fingers are interdependent and, since the function of a finger cannot be appropriated by any of the other fingers on a hand, it will make sense to say that no finger is superior to the other and all fingers are equal to one another. Inequality amongst man kinds is manmade and not natural. In nature, human beings are inter-dependent but, unfortunately, the dominating European world has replaced interdependency with the law of the jungle, known as the survival of the fittest which they gave a scientific name, Eugenics or Racial Biology. Through the doctrine of the survival of the fittest, the European world overrated the value of dependency of other races on them while underrating the value of their own dependency on other races of mankind. Oliver C. Cox observed the phenomenon thus, "Race prejudice, ... is a social attitude propagated among the public by an exploiting class for the purpose of stigmatizing some group as inferior so that the exploitation of either the group itself or its resources or both may be justified." (p.393, Caste, Class & Race)
Europeans and their extensions worldwide have constructed racial pyramid on which they place themselves at the top and putting anthropological Africans (the Blacks) at the bottom. In that racial pyramid, the pale-skinned Europeans ascribed to themselves the colour, white, while the dark-skinned Africans and their kith world over are ascribed with the colour, black. In their racial world a child parented by a *white person and a black person* is called MULATTO. The offspring of a MULATTO and a white person is called a QUADROON, indicating that the child contains one-quarter of black (Negro) blood. A child between a QUADROON and a white person is called an OCTROON to indicate that the child contains one-eight of black (Negro) blood. Harry was not only born royal, he is white while Meghan Markle, his wife, is a Mulatto and thereby, a child parented by them, according to praxis, would be a QUADROON, that is to say child containing one-quarter of black blood in the British Royal Family. When members of the Royal family asked Harry and Meghan about how black would the colour of their yet to be born child would be, the question was diplomatically framed to demand that the marriage or the pregnancy should be terminated. Having refused to break the marriage and terminate the pregnancy, Harry suspected that history, as it happened with his mother, Diana, might repeat itself on his wife and his son, if not himself too. The United Queendom of Britain and the Royal Family regard Meghan, a Mulatto, and her son, a Quadroon, fathered by Prince Harry, as unforgivable contamination/pollution of the British Royal Blood. Therefore, Prince Harry declared his independence from British racism and fled Britain with his beloved wife and son, Archie, who the British people say his blood is not, at all, red or blue like theirs but dark. Olayinka Agbetuyi in a recent post on this forum said the senior brother of Prince Harry was asked at a London School, "Is the Royal Family a racist family, Sir?" Prince William replied, *We're very much not a racist family.* Of course the question was intentionally framed to allow Prince William to give a simple answer of denial. The right question which should have been posed to Prince William is, "Has the Royal Family or anybody in the Royal family expressed fear over how black the yet to be born child of Prince Harry and Meghan would be?" So far, no one in the Royal Family has denied Prince Harry and Meghan Markel's information that the Royal Family, not Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, had worried about the colour of the skin of their yet to be born child, which inevitably is a racist worry.
While Harry and Meghan scampered for safety from the racist attacks they were subjected to within the Royal Family, and the British public in general, diversionists are trying to convert the victims of Royal racism to hypersensitive complainants. Of Meghan, they accuse her of being an American feminist ideologue with the intention to change many centuries old British Royal traditions which the Royal Family resisted. However, professional word twisters and truth benders failed to tell the world which of the traditions of the British Royal Family, Meghan had attempted to change. Obviously, the only tradition broken by Meghan was that she is the first, Black and White, racially mixed woman in history to get married into the British Royal Family. Besides, British Royal marriages are nothing to be proud of if one combs through history, recent or old. Following the disclosure of John Profumo's scandal in 1963 concerning perverted sexual practices by some high-ranking British elites in which teenage girls, namely Chistine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies, were involved, The Daily Mirror of 24 June 1963, had this front-page headline : PRINCE PHILIP AND THE PROFUMO SCANDAL. Prince Philip, the husband of Queen Elizabeth, was said to have participated in the perverted sex orgies in which he was naked and wore black mask over his head with slits for eye-holes. Prince Charles, the first child of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip was married to Princess Diana who within the marriage gave birth to two Princes, William and Harry. Speaking about her marriage with Prince Charles in a 1995 BBC interview, Princess Diana disclosed, "There are three of us in this marriage so, it is a bit crowded." Diana named one Camilla Parker Bowles, married, since 1973, to Andrew Parker Bowles and blessed with two children, Laura and Tom Parker, as the lover of Prince Charles. It became public that Prince Charles and Camilla have been having sexual affairs since 1986 when both were officially married in their respective homes. The Royal Family directed their anger against Diana for exposing British Royalty to public ridicule, instead of pulling the ears of Prince Charles for perpetrating marriage fraud on his wife. The second child of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip is Princess Anne, the junior sister to Prince Charles. At the beginning of 1970's it was a public knowledge that Andrew Parker Bowles was the boyfriend of Princess Anne. Somehow, Andrew Parker Bowles dumped Princess Anne to marry nee Camilla Rosemary Shand who became Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles in 1973. Following the disclosure of Princess Diana in the BBC interview of 1995 that Camilla Parker Bowles was a hooker to Prince Charles, the marriage between Andrew Parker Bowles and Camilla was dissolved in 1995. Marriage between Prince Charles and Diana was dissolved the following year. Nine years after the dissolution of the marriage between Princess Diana and Prince Charles and the death of the former, Prince Charles officially got married to Camilla Parker Bowles on 9 April 2005. Just think of it, Andrew Parker Bowles, the former boyfriend of Princess Anne, got his wife Camilla seduced by Prince Charles, the brother of Princess Anne!! Princess Anne herself, got married to Mark Phillips in 1973 and the marriage was blessed with two children who are known today as Peter Phillips and Zara (Phillips) Tindall. Their marriage was dissolved in 1984 when it was discovered that Mark Phillips had a child with another woman while still married with Princess Anne. In 1992, Princess Anne married again to Vice Admiral Timothy Laurence. The same year that Prince Charles was having extra-marital affairs with Camilla Parker Bowles in 1986, his younger brother, Prince Andrew, got married to Sarah Ferguson, nicknamed Fergie. Prince Andrew and Fergie have two children, Beatrice and Eugenie. In 1992, Sarah Ferguson was photographed in St. Tropez, showing how her financial adviser, John Byan, was sucking her toes at a beach. That led to her immediate separation from Prince Andrew and the marriage between Andrew and Ferguson was finally dissolved in 1996, the same year his senior brother, Prince Charles, got divorced from Princess Diana. Recently, Prince Andrew was relegated by the Royal Family because of his association with the American sexual predator, Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted in 2010. In 2019, he committed suicide in protective custody while awaiting trial for trafficking in female minors in a widespread sexual scandal. Prince Andrew's acquaintance with Jeffery Epstein began in 1999 and continued after the latter had served prison sentence for sexual offence in New York in 2010. Traditionally, there is nothing special with the British Royal Family that cannot be found in the British society as a whole and, indeed, in other European world with, or without, monarchy.
Blindfolding self from the racists attack on Meghan Markle, some Africans veered off to equate African Monarchies with the British Monarchy. The blue blood hypothesis of Kings in Europe and particularly in Britain, arose out of the belief or myth that Kings are created differently and special to rule over their subjects. In Nigeria during the feudal and agrarian era, for an example, the selection of a King (Oba in Yorubaland) was based on merit and not possession of blue blood. A brave person who led his people to repel attacks on the community was automatically crowned a King. A person who could provide what the community required automatically became a King. The Kings of those days, defended/led their communities in wars, agriculture and hunting. That explains why the Yoruba do not have only a King, as in Britain, but many Kings. Although Britain made use of the Kings (Oba) to establish colonialism, Nigerian Obas were not recognised as Kings by the British, rather the Obas were titled and addressed as Chiefs. That was why, for example, the 1958 Constitution provided for House of Chiefs and not House of Kings. In the advent of slave trade and colonialism, the monarchs in Nigeria (Africa) outlived their usefulness. The mere fact that the States' government can remove or install a king at will testifies to the contradiction and uselessness of Monarchs in the present-day Republic of Nigeria.S. Kadiri
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com <usaafric...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of OLAYINKA AGBETUYI <yagb...@hotmail.com>
Sent: 10 March 2021 03:16
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Oprah - Meghan MarkleinterviewonSunday March 7 - and Royal meltdown
There is nothing stopping Falola becoming Olubadan if he waits till he becomes one of the top ranking chiefsand is selected by the king makers just as the Faculty selects their Chair.
The Olúbàdàn is selected by progression and Prof Falola who is an Ìbàdàn chief on the path of progression can enlighten us more on that. The committee of chiefs definitely take achievement from all walks of life into consideration ( as my former landlord Chief Kola Daisi an industrial magnate rose to become the Başòrun, one of the highest ranking chiefs.) As I said the progression starts from Mágàjí agbo ilé ( local compound or ward heads.)
We havent had a female American President in 200 years. There is no law against it and there is nothing stopping the next American President being a lady.
Even the anachronistic British had two female Prime Ministers twice, with both of them serving with a female Head of State. The highest commands of governance were headed by two females at the same time, twice. So this is why the feminist angle does not jell too strong in the UK. Who is more modern in political dispensations and more female conscious in political dispensation then: the UK or the US?
In the US when selecting to chose between a male leader and female leader, females are often at the forefront of choosing a male leader.
There are town and cities in Yoruba land where the monarch comes from extended families ( never one, so there is a choice negotiated by king makers and Ifa priests. More like American electoral college system before it was invented in America) This was why I said the monarchical institution is not one hat fits all; not in Yoruba land let alone across the world.
Revolutionary stirrings occurred in France when they discovered that the monarchical institution was different in character in the United Kingdom as political theorist Montesquieu put it and gave non royals more rights than in France and was preferred to theirs.
OAA
Sent from my Galaxy
-------- Original message --------From: "K. Gozie Ifesinachukwu" <kgi...@austin.rr.com>Date: 10/03/2021 01:16 (GMT+00:00)Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Oprah - Meghan MarkleinterviewonSunday March 7 - and Royal meltdown
OLAYINKA,
Good for you for being a royalty, but your royalty is inherited like almost all monarchical royalties.
Does everyone (male or female) of Ibadan parentage have equal right to be Olubadan maybe through achievements or other qualifications? If Olubadan comes from a select "extended" family, then it is inherited.
My understanding is that women cannot become Olubadan. If that is correct, we have discounted more than 50% of the population from ever becoming Olubadan regardless of their qualifications. Please note that in most societies women account for slightly more than 50% of the population.
Prof. Falola earned his station in life by his hard work, creativity and generosity. If the position of Olubadan was open to the most qualified, he may very well be one today—not that he would want to.
I agree with Kojo. The institution of Monarchy is anachronistic in modern world. Heck, India got rid of their monarchs—some of which had been around for more than 1,500 years. Nigeria should or at least, the so called monarchs should not have legal recognition.
In reality all we want is equality under the law. Each of us have some advantages and disadvantages. If you are born blind or become blind at childhood, you are starting out at a disadvantage, but you could still aspire and work to be a "Ray Charles". But if you are born in Ibadan as the most intelligent, hardest working, most generous and most successful person, unless you are from the right family, you will never become the Olubadan of Ibadan. There is something not right about that in modern times.
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of OLAYINKA AGBETUYI
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:32 PM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Oprah - Meghan Markle interviewonSunday March 7 - and Royal meltdown
Gozie:
You would be vindicated if the abolition of Monarchy removes inequality in the world.
Donald Trump despite his excesses was ' more equal' ( apologies to George Orwell) than most new immigrants in America and that is the sad reality.
No Nigerian immigrant nor minor caucasian will instigate the assault on America's citadel of democracy and go scot free as he did.
That tells you something about legitimated democratic inequalities.
No one doubts or contests the fact Falola earned his pips, but while he is acting his position he is not equal to an Assistant Professor in the same department. The position confers unequal privileges. Thats just how things are.
No Oba or Obi did anyone any harm merely by being born into the royal family, and as Harry Windsor himself said several times in the past under fierce scrutiny from the people ( who financed his status and lifestyle because they want the institution in place but in an accountable format) through the agency of the Press, ' no one chooses to be a royal.' Agbetuyi was born into royalty but has never earned a penny nor enjoyed any privilege therefrom ( nor is he interested in being a crowned monarch.) For some it is just a mere gestural social stature. There are other avenues for social status available to the deserving and that are actually financially more rewarding than being in the position of minor royalty.
The current Oòni of Ifè became fabulously wealthy ever before becoming monarch as did his predecessor Oba Síjúwadé and they did not get rich merely as a result of their position as monarch.
Most minor royals in the UK earn their livelihood from inheritances and investments like the rest of the larger society
Most royals are trained in how to advance the goals of an ethical society through (unpaid) noble behaviour served by exemplary conduct. They let the larger society know that ' bolekaja' behaviour retrogresses societal goals. As Bishop Kukah said in the recent zoom interview, some of them are ready to lay down their' crown' for speaking truth to power about corrupt practices in governance rather than keep mum in order to keep it, as the deposed Emir of Kano did, without a fuss.
The English are cleverer than Nigerians. They know it is through the institution of accountable monarchy that they can avoid the American style Liberal democracy in which a clever minority can collude with a section of the majority and to hijack the polity, subject the country to perennial minority rule ( constituted into 'born to rule' social class whatever the form of government practiced) while the majority agonise and the country is torn apart by perennial instability.
Just because you do not belong to a social class or do not like a social class does not mean you should wish it out of existence. That in itself, in a democratic society which provides a space for all is disguised tyranny and dictatorial tendency. In other words trying to eradicate a disliked social class through tyranny.
OAA
Sent from my Galaxy
-------- Original message --------
From: "K. Gozie Ifesinachukwu" <kgi...@austin.rr.com>
Date: 09/03/2021 19:57 (GMT+00:00)
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Oprah - Meghan Markle interviewonSunday March 7 - and Royal meltdown
This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (kgi...@austin.rr.com) Add cleanup rule | More info
Toyin Falola achieved his esteemed position by his own hard work and brilliance not by inheritance.
"The whole idea of monarchy and all its attendant pomp and circumstance is really anachronistic. Who seriously believes that the Queen of England is God's rep on earth or "defender of the faith"? and which faith?"—Kojo.
I totally agree with Kojo's observations. Kojo's comments apply to all monarchies all over the world. All the Obis, Obas, and Sultans/Emirs should be rooted out in Nigeria—a Republic. Or at least none of them should have legal recognition in a Republic.
From: usaafric...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usaafric...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of OLAYINKA AGBETUYI
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 10:27 AM
To: usaafric...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Oprah - Meghan Markle interview onSunday March 7 - and Royal meltdown
I dont know any society which is built on strict equality. Toyin Falola is not equal with his students nor is he equal with Assistant Professors in his department.
Having Bush the father as president, Bush the son as president ( and Bush the Holy Ghost?) and Bush the the son as governor, in a way that cannot happen to Biko Agozino's or Donald Rumsfeld's families speaks of American citizen participation dynastic rule.
Having Saraki the father and Saraki the son lording it over Kwara speaks of citizen participation dynastic rule.
So Royalty is not the only contemporary institution built on equality ( in fact equality of access as was mentioned on this forum before is the hall mark of some royal institutions e.g the Ibadan royal institution with pecking orders from Magaji to the throne of Olubadan, so Royalty is not one hat fits all.)
Are minor royals equal to senior royals?
Whether in the context of royal institutions or other contemporary institutions, equality of access is what all should be working for.
OAA
Sent from my Galaxy
-------- Original message --------
From: "Chidi Anthony Opara, FIIM" <chidi...@gmail.com>
Date: 08/03/2021 15:37 (GMT+00:00)
To: USA Africa Dialogue Series <usaafric...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Oprah - Meghan Markle interview onSunday March 7 - and Royal meltdown
Biko,
Think of the very idea of blue blood and red blood, royalty and commoner.
Royalty is built on inequality. It should either be abolished or tolerated. There would be no middle ground.
CAO.
On Monday, 8 March 2021 at 16:04:31 UTC+1 biko...@yahoo.com wrote:
The charge of institutional racism is self-evident but what is not always known is that white supremacy is a threat to all. Harry was also hurt by being disinherited along with his wife and children and the institution will also suffer from the exposure of the cruelty. The fight against racism is not only for people of African descent, it is for all human beings.
However, Oprah may have overanalyzed the claim of Meghan that the institution was unsurvivable. That is not necessarily a suicidal thought. It is more likely a valid fear of being eliminated by a hostile institution that actually withdrew security details from the family despite death threats from a country with indisputable genocidal records against people of color.
Down with the monarchy, down with racism-sexism-imperialism.
Biko
On Mar 8, 2021 2:52 AM, "Chidi Anthony Opara, FIIM" <chidi...@gmail.com> wrote:
It seems to me that there were efforts to protect the monarchy by not revealing any direct involvement of the head of the monarchy, the Queen, in the alleged mistreatments of Markle on the basis of colour.
CAO.
On Monday, 8 March 2021 at 06:31:36 UTC+1 Gloria Emeagwali wrote:
"It's more subtle, less overt than it is in the US." Biko
That is true and it can drive you to suicidal thoughts, being no less damaging than the American variant, apparently.
This Oprah - Meghan Markle interview gives tremendous confirmation of how white supremacy operates.
Rumors, ambivalence, outright lies, denialism, doublespeak, name calling, eugenics- not to mention, the delegitimization of Black intellectuals and Black intelligence- are important variables in the ideology. Disempowerment is one of the main objectives.
The interview illustrates the deployment of some of these, and confirmed what many of us suspected.
Prof. Gloria Emeagwali
Vimeo.com/gloriaemeagwali
On Mar 6, 2021, at 17:12, 'Biko Agozino' via USA Africa Dialogue Series <usaafric...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
One of the big reasons that Meghan and Harry cited for leaving the family was their struggles with the press, and particularly the racism that was being directed at Meghan. Do you think that the press has learned anything or gotten any better in this latest cycle?
"No" is the short answer. We started this journey with Meghan being called "straight out of Compton," despite the fact that she did not grow up in Compton; in fact, she was a few miles away from it, and equal proximity to Beverly Hills. We also saw disparaging comments made about her mother's dreadlocks, comments about Meghan's exotic DNA. It all got quite ugly from the start, and unfortunately, we have seen that continue over time. I remember when the emergence of the "Duchess Difficult" character happened in the British tabloids. It really leaned heavily on some very sexist and racist stereotypes about the successful woman that was too demanding, too aggressive, too loud, too in-your-face.
Meghan Markle's royal biographers say her 'Duchess Difficult' persona is...
Mikhaila Friel
"Finding Freedom" authors Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand spoke to Insider about the new book, which details the ...
It's very sloppy, very lazy, and doesn't help anyone in the long run because of course, that commentary also makes the royal institution itself look incredibly dated because they were unable to hold on to really the only chance they ever had of being diverse or inclusive. I think we're really going to hear a lot about that when she sits down with Oprah. Race and racism in the U.K., which takes on a very different form over here—it's more subtle, less overt than it is in the U.S.—will really be one of the things that they talk about in depth.
On Saturday, 6 March 2021, 16:42:55 GMT-5, Gloria Emeagwali <gloria.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/DE2B8E97-4D54-4E4C-AEE2-9E2B2B68988C%40gmail.com.--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/207303677.181195.1615068671778%40mail.yahoo.com.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/bc84cdd6-e62e-4ed5-8555-1134c43ba2e1n%40googlegroups.com.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/058a3c72-954a-4953-910b-7a426fdd0055n%40googlegroups.com.--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/DB6PR04MB2982A65941DE43269F049ADEA6929%40DB6PR04MB2982.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/01f401d7151d%24769d8ab0%2463d8a010%24%40austin.rr.com.--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/DB6PR04MB2982DF18FD0E734E73AAFB7DA6929%40DB6PR04MB2982.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/026101d71547%243e65a8b0%24bb30fa10%24%40austin.rr.com.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/DB6PR04MB2982AEDC7C20D1B30A65A7E6A6919%40DB6PR04MB2982.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 a topic in the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/usaafricadialogue/A5tCa9cC29Y/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/HE1P193MB00762817B33576C750B1DA87AE919%40HE1P193MB0076.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAFYPD-SOz1LWPWvqj%3DtX27am8aZ0r_ufMoszEX-UiL9QQ3eO6Q%40mail.gmail.com.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/a6cb6173-a9c1-46c8-8eeb-f5561edf4d20n%40googlegroups.com.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 a topic in the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/usaafricadialogue/A5tCa9cC29Y/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/HE1P193MB0076F99EB61D9FC859917354AE6B9%40HE1P193MB0076.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAFYPD-TU9nNA%3D5LPPOheZSmbtcf0OSK-7c%2BYgbv_46DkrRgXXQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfric...@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDial...@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 a topic in the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/usaafricadialogue/A5tCa9cC29Y/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to usaafricadialo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/HE1P193MB0076535F55DA25C388C8269CAE699%40HE1P193MB0076.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/3897e7a6-6750-408a-8095-4acb6d202ae5n%40googlegroups.com.
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 a topic in the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/usaafricadialogue/A5tCa9cC29Y/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/HE1P193MB007669D5BAC3C8BE110A4516AE609%40HE1P193MB0076.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAFYPD-QNbyDdtUV7t%2BvQa2g4dZ%3Dzob7U9cwhErXkFtzOatVnBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment