|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Saturday, July 25, 2026
BEHIND THE MAN: TOYIN FALOLA AND FAMILY (A SHORT FILM)
Thursday, July 23, 2026
Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - FWD : THE PSYCHOPATHIC GLOBAL RULERS (3) BY S. KADIRI
My direct explanation to your enquiry is that the Jews in Russia were not persecuted before or after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. The persecution of the Jews in Eastern Europe, before the World War II, did not include Russia. The upsurge of Yiddish speaking migration into the British mandated Palestine, especially from Poland, began in 1920, among which was Benzion Mileikowsky who later adopted a Jewish surname, Netanyahu the paternal origin of the present day Israeli prime minister. Before World War II, Henry Ford wrote the book, "The International Jews," whose contents about the Jews were similar to Hitler's Mein Kampf.
On August 25, 1939, England signed a Defence Pact with Poland and on September 1, 1939, Hitler's Germany invaded Poland causing England and France to declare war on Germany on September 3, 1939. During the occupation, the Polish people co-operated with German Nazi occupant of Poland to persecute the Jews living among them. The persecution continued until Russia liberated Poland on January 17, 1945. Take notice that it was the Russian Army that discovered Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland that corresponds to the present day Gaza.
Although there were political propaganda in the West in 1980s alleging persecution and oppression of the Jews in the then USSR, the US Ambassador to the United Nations under President Jimmy Carter, the Black American, Andrew Young, debunked the propaganda of the said Jewish persecution. Andrew Young thought loudly that all the Jewish immigrants from the USSR were highly educated Engineers, Scientists and Professors. He wondered how Jews could have achieved such high standards of education if they were really persecuted and oppressed. Andrew Young concluded that the condition of life of the Russian Jews were million times better than that of the Black Americans. Henry Kissinger, the US National Security Adviser to President Richard Nixon in 1969 and later Secretary of State in 1973 was angry at Andrew Young. He demanded that President Jimmy Carter should declare who was qualified to speak for the USA on foreign affairs.
Incidentally, Henry Kissinger fled from Germany in 1938 when Hitler was busy purifying the bodies of the Germans from the contamination of Jewish blood, in fulfillment of his goal of making Germany to contain one blood as enunciated in his Mein Kampf, "Only when the Reich contains the whole German race and can no longer assure all its people their food, will the needs of the people establish the moral right to win foreign soil." Three years before Henry Kissinger fled from Germany, Dr Clearance G. Campbell was a member of the USA delegates to the conference of Racial Biologists held in Berlin in 1935. At the Conference, Dr Campbell showered praises on Adolf Hitler and the German Interior Minister, William Frick, for successfully implementing the policy of racial biology in Germany.
Andrew Young, whose parents and grand parents were born in the USA, was born on March 12, 1932, in New Orleans, USA. Yet, according to Henry Kissinger, Andrew Young was not qualified to speak on the foreign affairs of the USA as Henry Kissinger had done while in office because Andrew Young was racially not a Caucasian like Kissinger.
S. Kadiri
From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelberg@gmail.com>
Sent: 22 July 2026 19:17
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - FWD : THE PSYCHOPATHIC GLOBAL RULERS (3) BY S. KADIRI
Sent: 22 July 2026 19:17
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com <usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - FWD : THE PSYCHOPATHIC GLOBAL RULERS (3) BY S. KADIRI
Baba Kadiri,
Kudos: One of your vital functions in this forum is that you counter spurious claims which if allowed to go unchallenged would only tarnish the good name of this series,,,,
This sentence unwittingly invites and demands greater clarity and it’s your duty to unravel it please, since you are its author : You say that “The Jews who Hitler's Germany murdered massively were also persecuted all over Europe except in Russia, especially, after the Bolshevik revolution.”
Ignoramus wonders, does it mean that (a) The Jews were not persecuted in Russia,”especially, after the Bolshevik revolution.”, or does it mean “The Jews were persecuted in Russia, ”especially, after the Bolshevik revolution.” ? For the sake of factual, historical accuracy, please, let us be clear.
One has to be particularly concerned bearing Poale Zion (https://www.google.com/search?q=Poale+Zion ) in mind
especially after reading the kinds of antiSemtic propaganda that laces some of the comments we find here https://www.instagram.com/reel/Da_FzfbPI0y/?igsh=dTZmanV1d2syczlr
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 14:48, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelberg@gmail.com> wrote:
THE PSYCHOPATHIC GLOBAL RULERS (3) BY S. KADIRI
My last submission on this subject ended with the sentencing of some of the German Nazis at Nuremberg. But the significance of Nuremberg trial would never be appreciated without knowing that long before Adolf Hitler was born, National Socialism based on Eugenics, had been practised mainly by Europeans where ever they had settled down by force around the World. The Jews who Hitler's Germany murdered massively were also persecuted all over Europe except in Russia, especially, after the Bolshevik revolution. History recorded it too that Winston Churchill blamed the Jews for the Bolsheviks revolution. Even before the Bolsheviks revolution Jonas Liliequist disclosed in his 1991 Doctoral Dissertation at Umeå University which he captioned: BROTT, SYND OCH STRAFF- TIDELAGSBROTTET I SVERIGE UNDER 1600- OCH 1700-TALET (Crime, Sin and Punishment: Bestiality [sexual intercourse between human being and animal] In Sweden, in the 17th and 18th Century Sweden, on page 20 thus, "A British penal code from year 1290, for instance, stipulated that whosoever has had sexual intercourse with a Jew, cattle or a person of the same gender must be buried alive." If Jonas Liliequist's reference to the English penal code from 1290 was true, that would imply that the Jews were regarded and treated by the English people as cattle, homosexual, and not human beings. On reading this part of Jonas Liliequist's Doctoral Dissertation pertaining to the Jews in England of year 1290, I came to reflect on how we as school children in the British colonized African countries were given William Shakespeare's play, "The Merchant of Venice", written in year 1596, for our studies of the English language. At that point in time none of us, African Children, could identify a Jew in person, if we met one. However, the money lender in the merchant of Venice, Shylock, created in our minds the image of the Jews as wicked people who could kill for the sake of money, as he was said to have insisted in cutting a pound of flesh near the heart of Antonio in lieu of failure to repay borrowed money. William Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice reflected not only the prejudice and persecution of the Jews by Britain but also by the entire Europe. Racially, the Jews, according to the eugenicists, are also Caucasians just like Europeans and as such their persecution and the attempt to annihilate them by fellow Caucasians was not based on racism but on ethnicity. European Jews never spoke or understood Hebrew, but Yiddish. As it were, Britain led Europe into the extermination of the American aborigines that resulted in their (aborigines) being supplanted by Europeans and which led to the establishments of English, French and Spanish/Portuguese speaking America. It was through that genocide in history that USA, a child of Britain, subsequently outgrew its parents. Britain was a leading European country that stole and ferried millions of Black people from Africa to America, especially to the United States, as Slaves. USA declared itself Independent of Britain in 1776 but the enslavement of the Blackman continued. USA, just like most European Nations, before and after Hitler, had claimed to be Christians and had always justified their enslavement of the Blackman with selected verses from the Bible, the acclaimed Christian's holy book.
A perusal of History reveals that Thomas R. Dew, was a White American and a Professor of History, Metaphysics and Political Law at William and Mary College, Virginia, USA. Contributing to a book titled, " THE PROSLAVERY ARGUMENT" (p.287 -490) published in 1832, he justified the enslavement of the Negro ( Blackman) on the grounds that the Negro (Blackman) possessed the strength and form of a man but had the intellect of a child and therefore unfit for freedom.
By 1851, a White American and a Doctor of Divinity, George D. Armstrong, wrote a Book titled, "THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF SLAVERY." On p.8 of the book he stated that "CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES TEACH THAT SLAVE-HOLDING IS NOT A SIN IN THE SIGHT OF GOD AND IS NOT TO BE ACCOUNTED AN OFFENCE BY HIS CHURCH." Further on p.9, he emphasized that "SLAVE-HOLDING DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY CATALOGUE OF SINS OR DISCIPLINABLE OFFENCES GIVEN US IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. DR Armstrong asserted further in the book, that the enslavement of the negro (Blackman) by the Whiteman was due to the fact that he (Blackman) had been cursed by GOD. His very colour was a sign of curse which he had received as a descendant of Ham. He carefully selected parts of the Bible to prove that God had intended that the Negro (Blackman) should be the servant of the Whiteman and that he would always be a hewer of wood and drawer of water for the Whiteman. On p.134 of the book Dr Armstrong speculated that, "CHRISTIAN SLAVERY (of the Blackman) IS GOD's SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM (BETWEEN LABOUR AND CAPITAL) ABOUT WHICH THE WISEST STATESMEN OF EUROPE CONFESS THEMSELVES AT FAULT." *In 1853, Reverend Fred A. Ross on his part wrote a book titled, "SLAVERY ORDAINED BY GOD." In the preface to the book, on p.5, he stated that, "SLAVERY IS OF GOD, AND TO CONTINUE FOR THE GOOD OF THE SLAVE, THE GOOD OF THE MASTER, THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE AMERICAN (WHITE) FAMILY ..."
In 1900, St. Louis: American Book and Bible House published a book titled "NEGRO A BEAST" written by one Chas Carroll. Certifying the scientific nature of what was termed the 'Biblical truths' in the book, the author included pictures of God and an idealized picture of a Whiteman in order to prove that White people were made in the image of God, as stated in the Bible that God created man in his own image, and with a caricature of the Negro (Blackman) to indicate that he, the Negro, could not have been made in the image of God. In the last chapter of this book, on p.339, the author asserted that the NEGRO WAS NOT THE SON OF HAM, OR EVEN THE DESCENDANT OF ADAM AND EVE, BUT "SIMPLY A BEAST WITHOUT SOUL."
That the Blackman was not entitled to be accorded any respect by the Whiteman was established through a judgment delivered by the United States Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, in a case of assault filed by a Negro (Blackman), named Dred Scott, against a European-American (a Whiteman), John F. A. Sandford. The Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that, "A Negro has no rights which a Whiteman need respect." The Court declared further that in the meaning of the words, "People of the United States," in the US Constitution, Negroes were not included in the people of the United States. With that Supreme Court's judgment the Negro was regarded as a chattel property, and therefore, had no rights as human being.
Considering the fact that Dr Clearance G. Campbell of the USA was praising Hitler and his Minister of Interior, Dr Wilhelm Frick, for successfully purifying the Germans who were allegedly contaminated with the blood of the Jew during the Berlin conference of racial biologists (eugenicists) in Germany,1935, it is understandable that Eugenics was never exclusively German. The Berlin conference of racial biologists in 1935, was also followed by the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin, Germany just before World War II. History recorded it that at that Olympic Games, a Black (Negro) American athlete, Jesse Owens, whose real name was James Cleveland, won four gold medals in, 100 meters, 200 m., 4 x100 m.(relay), and long jump with a world record. At the ceremony to give medals to winners, Adolf Hitler refused to shake hands with Jesse Owens because he was Black and the US Government at that time never protested. Ironically, when Jesse Owens returned home to America, he was confronted with sign - posts at the entrance of public toilets and restaurants stating: NEGROES AND DOGS ARE PROHIBITED. Racial politics leading to genocide was not exclusively German, since it is known that the greatest holocaust in human history was the annihilation of the American aborigines and their being supplanted by Europeans. Viewed from that angle, one is led to believe that the Nuremberg trial of the German Nazis was conducted by the Victors, especially in this wise, USA, Britain and France, against the vanquished, the Germans. But as the Nuremberg's Tribunal Justices proclaimed, the trial was to put an end to racism and never again to be the pillars of national politics anywhere in the world. But what happened after the Nuremberg's Tribunal judgments of October 1, 1946?
In fact, World War II was still raging when the US convened the Bretton Woods Conference, July 1-22, 1944. The Conference established the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and headquartered it in Washington D.C., United States. The Bretton Woods Final Act was ratified at Savannah Conference in Georgia, USA between March 8 and 18, 1946. USSR did not ratify Bretton Woods Final Act because of the inclusion of dollar and gold, pointing out that the institutions created were branches of Wall Street.
In 1947, the then US Secretary of State, George Catlett Marshall proposed Marshall Plan, a programme of U.S. economic aid for the Reconstruction of post-World War II Europe (1948-1952), and it was designated European Recovery Programme. Africans and Asians were not considered for similar economic recovery but rather it was planned that the resources of Africa and Asia would be utilised for the economic recovery of Europe under the guidance and supervision of the USA.
In 1947, James Burnham published a book titled, "The Struggle for the World, delineating the aims of an American Empire." Parts of the world which should come under the influence of the American Empire were listed as follows, " The North Pole; Canada; South America; Mexico; Norway; Sweden; Belgium and Holland; Germany; France; Italy; Spain; England; Africa; the Near East; the Middle East; India; China; Indonesia; Australia; New Zealand; and the South Pole." He set out the programme which will be ... capable of exercising decisive world control. Nothing less than this can be positive or offensive phase of a rational United States policy (p.188). After stating that American (USA) Empire can only be established by force, he emphasized that, "It must be granted that the United States cannot within the allotted time win the leadership of a viable world political order merely by appeals to rational conviction. Power must be there, with the known readiness to use it, whether in the indirect form of paralysing economic sanctions, or in the direct explosion of bombs. As the ultimate reserve in the power series there would be the monopoly control of atomic weapons ( p. 193-195)." And in Hitler's tone, he asserted on page 201 that "Independence and freedom are, after all, abstractions." While Winston Churchill was urging the US to deploy its monopoly of Atomic bomb to dismantle the communist regime of the USSR, the US wanted to modernise what it termed, old-fashioned colonialism. In the Spring of 1947, the President of the United States, Harry S. Truman, laid down the US doctrine that would allow it to intervene in any country of the world in order to ensure the maintenance of government's approved by it. For the sake of clarity, I have to point out here that Harry S. Truman was a Democrat and not a Republican like the current US President, Donald Trump.
In March 1948, the British Labour Party Executive published what it termed The Labour Party's Plan for Western Europe. Therein, it was declared, "It is fully recognised that Western Europe cannot live by itself as an Independent economic unit... A real reduction in our (Western Europe) dependence on American supplies depends, above all, on developing the vast resources of the African Continent (for European consumption). But such development depends on close collaboration among the Powers with responsibility in Africa." The powers with responsibility in Africa were the British, French, Belgian, Spanish and Portuguese colonialists in Africa. Who granted them the power of responsibility in Africa was the question no one ever asked. After the end of World War II Western Europe still wanted to retain their colonies, especially in Africa. In Asia the European colonialists had problems in reclaiming their colonies from which Japan had ejected them during the war. In the New York Times of January 11, 1949, its Geneva Correspondent emphasized that colonial domination was indispensable for European reconstruction, and he wrote, "The high living standards of Europe are certainly to a degree dependent upon the availability of raw materials and cheap labour in Asia and Africa. Although old-fashioned colonial imperialism is considered outmoded, a recovering Europe cannot do without sources of wealth menaced by the USSR's new drive for popular democracy."
While we, the Africans were (and still today are) used to collaborating with our foreign exploiters and persecutors, and African leaders continue to mimic their European masters, the Asians had always resisted European sovereignty over them with arms. No sooner than World War II ended, Europeans returned to Asia with full force to reclaim their colonial territories from which the Japanese had ejected them during the war. The Times editorial of March 1, 1949, with the title, 'Far Eastern Front' commented thus, "The revolutionary movements in Eastern Asia as a whole - ranging from North China down to Indonesia and northward again to Malaya and the Burmese hills - are changing the world strategic and Political map. The destinies of nearly a thousand million people are being shaped. With Communists either in the leadership or striving towards it, the challenge to Western Security is, at least as great, as if Africa were in ferment." Why should Asians refusal to be colonised by Europeans be regarded as a challenge to Western Security? This is because Colonialism had never been philanthropic since its only declared purpose was to snatch food from the mouths of the colonized people to feed the people of the colonising states.
Let's recall what Cecil Rhodes revealed to his intimate English journalist friend, William Thomas Stead in 1895. Cecil Rhodes told Stead, "I was in the East End of London yesterday and attended the meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches which were just a CRY FOR BREAD, BREAD, BREAD, and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism.... My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e. In order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we, colonial statesmen MUST ACQUIRE NEW LANDS TO SETTLE THE SURPLUS POPULATION, TO PROVIDE NEW MARKETS FOR THE GOODS PRODUCED BY THEM IN THE FACTORIES AND MINES. THE EMPIRE AS I HAVE ALWAYS SAID, IS A BREAD- -AND-BUTTER QUESTION. IF YOU WANT TO AVOID CIVIL WAR ( IN UK) YOU MUST BECOME IMPERIALISTS." See p.79, chapter 4 of the book, 'Crises of Britain and the British Empire' by R. Palme Dutt. Cecil Rhodes was the conqueror of that part of Africa which he named Rhodesia, today's Zambia and Zimbabwe. That feeding Europeans depended on owning colonies was the cause of starting World War II by Adolf Hitler was incontrovertible in his speech as the Chancellor in the German Reichstag (Parliament) of 20 February 1938, when he lamented as follows, "Our economic position is a difficult one, not because National Socialism is at the helm, but because 140 people must live on a square kilometre; BECAUSE WE ARE NOT IN POSSESSION OF THOSE GREAT NATURAL RESOURCES ENJOYED BY OTHER PEOPLE; BECAUSE, ABOVE ALL, WE HAVE A SCARCITY OF FERTILE SOIL. If Great Britain should suddenly dissolve today and England become dependent solely on her own territory, then the people there would perhaps have more understanding of the seriousness of economic tasks which confront us. …//…. No matter what we may achieve by increasing German production, all this cannot remove the impossible nature of the space allotted to Germany. THE CLAIM FOR GERMAN COLONIAL POSSESSIONS WILL THEREFORE, BE VOICED FROM YEAR TO YEAR WITH INCREASING VIGOUR, POSSESSIONS WHICH GERMANY DID NOT TAKE AWAY FROM OTHER COUNTRIES AND WHICH TODAY ARE OF NO VALUE TO THESE POWERS BUT APPEAR TO BE INDISPENSABLE FOR OUR OWN PEOPLE. ( p.63, Peace With the Dictators by Sir Normal Angell, culled from the German newspaper Der Angriff (The Attacker) of February 21, 1938).
The German Colonial possessions which the US, Britain and France seized from Germany through the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and which Hitler was demanding in order to prevent hunger in Germany were, Southwest Africa, the present day Namibia with the landmass of 823,328 square kilometres; Tanganyika, present day Tanzania, with landmass of 943,203 square kilometres; Cameron with landmass of 475,500 square kilometres; and Togo with landmass of 56,700 square kilometres. Total landmass of the German Colonial possessions in Africa being claimed by Hitler was 2,298,731 square kilometres and which was almost seven times bigger in size than Germany with a landmass of 357,041 square kilometres. Natural resources poor countries of Europe decided to invade the Natural resources rich parts of the world, to extract their raw materials to feed their industries and peoples while at the same time declaring as poor the people in the territories from where Natural resources were being stolen as poor and underdeveloped.
1949 was a turning point in World politics. The USA had planned a new World order in which she would take the lion's share of the world resources while offering tiger's shares to Western Europe and while mineral and agricultural resources rich areas of the world would be declared poor. According to the US plan, the colonies were to be given nominal political independence headed by their chosen puppets who were imposed on people of the semi-colonies while the economic control would reside in the hands of the USA led Western World. By 1949, it was becoming clearer, especially in Asia, that Western Europe would not be able to retain their colonies without the help of the US military.
To be continued.
--
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/CtrtC1MbenE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/be8177f0-f7f3-4220-893c-543f22ef9eefn%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 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAFYPD-R2xmE%3Ds6y8fgCA2bLyxe%2BLaHMh%2BYF%3DLGfSPoRrGi6nOQ%40mail.gmail.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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CAFYPD-R2xmE%3Ds6y8fgCA2bLyxe%2BLaHMh%2BYF%3DLGfSPoRrGi6nOQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - The “Nigerian Answer”
Apparently, those who phrase the question as "the Igbo question” have failed (intentionally or unintentionally) to discern the fallacy in the phrase.
Oohay
On Jul 22, 2026, at 11:58 AM, John Onyeukwu <john.onyeukwu@gmail.com> wrote:
The “Nigerian Answer”
The debate reignited by Alhaji Buba Galadima's remarks is not fundamentally about whether an Igbo can become President. It is about whether Nigeria can build a republic where citizenship matters more than ethnicity. That requires not another ethnic bargain, but a new nation-building compact, one that could become a model for Africa.
John Onyeukwu | Policy & Reform Column, Business a.m. | July 20 –26, 2026 | The ‘Nigerian Answer’ https://share.google/xYem8gL8JNAFyYCiI
Every enduring nation must eventually answer one fundamental question: Who truly belongs? Until that question is answered through institutions rather than sentiment, nationhood remains unfinished.
Alhaji Buba Galadima's recent remarks on Arise Television have once again brought the "Igbo Question" into Nigeria's political consciousness. His argument was straightforward: if political actors reject an Igbo presidential candidate solely because of ethnicity, they should not expect the support of Igbo voters during elections. Whether one agrees with his political calculation is almost beside the point. The enduring significance of his intervention lies in the deeper constitutional and philosophical question it exposes. More than fifty-five years after the Nigerian Civil War and more than a century after the amalgamation of 1914, why should the ethnicity of a presidential aspirant still influence perceptions of political legitimacy in a constitutional democracy founded on the equality of citizens?
The instinctive answer is to return once again to what has become known as the Igbo Question. Yet that phrase itself has become part of the problem. It suggests that Nigeria is confronted by a uniquely Igbo grievance requiring a uniquely Igbo solution. It narrows a national crisis into an ethnic conversation. In reality, the Igbo Question is not Nigeria's problem; it is Nigeria's diagnostic instrument. It reveals whether the Nigerian state has succeeded in transforming a collection of ethnic nationalities into a community of equal citizens. If the answer is yes, then there is ultimately no Igbo Question. If the answer is no, every ethnic group will eventually have its own question.
This is why the future of the Igbo Question lies not in another round of elite bargaining over zoning, rotation or political symbolism. It lies in constructing what I call the Nigerian Answer: a constitutional, political and moral compact, in which citizenship is stronger than ethnicity, institutions stronger than patronage, and justice stronger than grievance. The Nigerian Answer is not an ethnic settlement. It is a nation-building framework.
Nigeria's challenge did not begin with the Civil War. It began with the creation of the Nigerian state itself. The amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates on 1 January 1914 created an administrative entity, but it did not create a nation. More than 250 ethnic nationalities, multiple religious traditions and diverse political systems were brought together under a single colonial authority without a shared social contract. Independence in 1960 transferred power from British officials to Nigerian leaders, but it did not automatically produce a common civic identity. Nationhood is not inherited. It is built.
The constitutional evolution that followed reflected this unfinished project. The Richards Constitution of 1946, the Macpherson Constitution of 1951 and the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 were all attempts to reconcile diversity with unity through constitutional engineering. Yet beneath those debates lay familiar anxieties. The North feared domination. The West feared marginalisation. The East feared exclusion. Minority communities feared absorption into larger regional blocs. These were not isolated fears. They were different expressions of the same national dilemma: how could diverse peoples build a common political future without losing their identities?
The Civil War did not create that dilemma; it exposed it with devastating clarity. Between 1967 and 1970, Nigeria fought not only for territorial integrity but also for the legitimacy of the Nigerian idea. General Yakubu Gowon's declaration of "No Victor, No Vanquished" remains one of the most statesmanlike statements in our history because it acknowledged a profound truth. Military victory could preserve the federation. Only reconciliation, justice and inclusion could build a nation. More than five decades later, the persistence of debates over exclusion, belonging and representation suggests that the work of nation-building remains incomplete.
The mistake we continue to make is to interpret these debates through ethnic lenses. The Igbo Question is treated as though it concerns only the South-East. Yet a graduate in Kano searching unsuccessfully for employment, a farmer in Benue living with insecurity, a fisherman in Bayelsa confronting environmental degradation, a trader in Aba navigating poor infrastructure and an entrepreneur in Lagos frustrated by weak institutions are all asking variations of the same question: Can the Nigerian state guarantee justice, opportunity and dignity regardless of identity? Their experiences differ, but the underlying concern is remarkably similar. The issue is not fundamentally who occupies Aso Rock. It is whether Nigerians experience the state as fair, competent and worthy of trust.
The late Claude Ake argued that Africa's crisis was fundamentally one of political legitimacy before it was one of economic development. Peter Ekeh explained why citizens often display stronger moral obligations to their ethnic communities than to the civic state. Ali Mazrui described post-colonial African states as navigating the tension between indigenous identities, colonial inheritances and modern constitutional aspirations. Together, these thinkers illuminate the Nigerian condition. Ethnic politics is often less the cause of weak states than the consequence of them. When institutions fail to inspire confidence, citizens retreat into ethnicity because identity offers the protection that the state has failed to provide.
The Nigerian Answer begins by reversing that logic. The purpose of a democratic republic is not to erase diversity but to ensure that diversity no longer determines the distribution of rights, opportunities or political legitimacy. Citizenship must become more meaningful than ancestry. Federalism must become a mechanism for inclusion rather than perpetual negotiation. Economic opportunity must be sufficiently broad-based to reduce the appeal of zero-sum identity politics. Above all, institutions, from the courts and the electoral system to the police, the civil service and public administration, must become more credible than ethnic patronage networks. Successful nations are not those that eliminate differences. They are those that build institutions strong enough to reassure every citizen that difference will never determine their worth.
This is where the debate reignited by Alhaji Galadima acquires significance beyond electoral politics. His intervention should not be reduced to whether one supports an Igbo presidency or a particular political party. The more important question is whether Nigeria has reached the stage of democratic maturity where the ethnic identity of a qualified presidential candidate should no longer provoke national anxiety. In established democracies, the legitimacy of leadership derives from constitutional process and public confidence, not from inherited identity. Nigeria cannot aspire to a different standard indefinitely without weakening the very idea of equal citizenship.
The implications extend well beyond Nigeria. Across Africa, many states continue to wrestle with the unfinished business of nationhood. Cameroon confronts the Anglophone crisis. Ethiopia continues to debate ethnicity and federalism. Sudan's unresolved identity conflicts culminated in partition and the birth of South Sudan. The Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to grapple with the relationship between regional identities and national citizenship. These cases remind us that Africa's greatest challenge is not diversity. Diversity is the continent's historical condition. The challenge is building states in which citizenship commands greater loyalty than ethnicity because justice, fairness and constitutional equality are experienced rather than merely proclaimed.
Nigeria is uniquely positioned to contribute to that conversation. As Africa's most populous country and one of its most diverse societies, it represents perhaps the continent's greatest experiment in plural nationhood. If Nigeria succeeds in building a republic where over 250 ethnic nationalities see themselves first as equal citizens without surrendering their cultural identities, it will offer one of the most significant contributions to African political thought since independence. The Nigerian Answer could become more than a domestic framework. It could become an African framework for managing diversity through democratic institutions rather than perpetual political bargaining.
That possibility demands a shift in our national conversation. We must stop asking only whether the Igbo have been treated fairly, important as that question remains. We must begin asking whether the Nigerian state treats every Nigerian fairly. We must move beyond debates over which region should produce the next President to the more fundamental task of building institutions that make every qualified citizen a legitimate contender. The quality of a republic is measured not by how often it rotates power among identities, but by how effectively it guarantees equal citizenship to all.
The debate over the Igbo Question should therefore continue, but on different terms. Its purpose should not be to secure another ethnic accommodation. Its purpose should be to compel Nigeria to complete the nation-building project that began in 1914, gained political independence in 1960 and survived civil war in 1970. The real challenge before Nigeria is no longer whether the country can remain together. History has answered that. The challenge is whether it can become the kind of nation where no citizen needs to ask whether he or she truly belongs.
That is the Nigerian Answer.
It is not an answer to the Igbo alone. It is an answer to every Nigerian who believes that citizenship should matter more than ancestry, that institutions should matter more than patronage, and that justice should matter more than identity. If Nigeria can build such a republic, it will do more than resolve one of its oldest political debates. It will demonstrate to Africa, and indeed to other plural societies around the world, that diversity need not be a fault line. Properly governed, it can become the foundation of democratic strength, national resilience and shared prosperity.
--
John Onyeukwu
http://www.policy.hu/onyeukwu/http://about.me/onyeukwu
“Let us move forward to fight poverty, to establish equity, and assure peace for the next generation.”
-- James D. Wolfensohn
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete or destroy the message. Thank you.--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/CABsbg_JZJDk2XmqK%2B%3DdxKCe3OsKcuG-FbD5ommuHvCpEfiKb%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)