"Nigeria falls into 'a state of war' as Islamist ..." Topic

…insurgency rages.

"More than 1,300 people have died in the past two months as an insurgent Islamist group, Boko Haram, wages a rebellion rooted in poverty, corruption, religion and geography.

Zakari Matazu had just got home when a deafening sound filled his ears and part of his wall cracked and fell to the floor, whipping up a cloud of dust. Then came another boom and his legs started shaking.

"I walked outside my house, then I saw people running helter-skelter and people screaming, and at that point my legs could no longer carry me, so I just sat down on the ground," he recalled. "That is when I saw my neighbour Mama Baby, who was screaming and pointing to a building that had been brought to the ground by the bomb, and she was saying that her children were in the rubble."…"
Full article here.
link

Seems that things are going really bad there.

Amicalement
Armand

"Boko-Haram',runs n-east Nigeria,Lagos being a country away logistically speaking has just replaced their entire defence hierarchy because of infighting.Another problem being the use of troops from the area whose families are threatened so they abandon checkpoints at the time of attack.And the Muslim groups rob the plentiful armories dotting the landscape.And yet Nigeris sends troops all over Africa on peacekeeping missions…good grief.Hopefully the new Chief of staff can do a better job.

Ahhhh Africa

I remember the saying for Mexico once was "Too close to the US and too far from God".

Is there a similar saying for Africa.

Of course, it is the way it is largely because of European colonialism.

I'm curious, Ceasar what the basis for that is? My understanding (and please feel free to correct me) was that many of the "issues" in Africa today are, for lack of a beter term, tribal in nature. The most highlighted case in my mind, the Hutus and the Tutsis, which led to the Rwandan genocides, as well as the Congo wars, predates colonialism. In what way does European colonialism cause it? From a purely outside point of view, and antiquated notions of "lesser" races aside (which is obviously wrong and bigoted), wasn't it a colonial government that kept these rivalries in check? Once the colonial powers left Africa we've seen decades of genocide and civil war. It's hard to see how the nations of Africa weren't better off as colonies compared to their current status.

Of course, it is the way it is largely because of European colonialism.

Oh defintitely. 60 years since the last colonial regime left is far too short a time for a country to sort itself out. So, like, Germany and Japan rebuilding from the total devastation of WW2 in 20 years was just a blip really….

Nothing at all to do with corrupt politicians and religious fundamentalism. Nah, nothing at all…

Its those damn British insisting on building infrastructure and sending the clever kids to Oxford and Cambridge for free…

Thankfully in these now independent countries kids get locked into their schools and burnt alive instead. Freedom!

Think folks missed the irony.

I think he was making a joke about it being the problem of colonialism.

darthfozzywig,
There is no nuance to posts. It's hard to tell if he's being ironic or not.

Such instability… must be why all their oil ministers are trying to get me to help them move their monies out of the country.

As someone living in a former colony, I think some blame can be laid on colonialism.

The thing is, colonial powers form "countries" in an arbitrary fashion, so that people from a formerly independent kingdom suddenly find themselves being a minority in a "country". On top of that, all the political and military power falls into the hands of the majority ethnic group in this new country, leaving the minority with no way to defend themselves against persecution. And if they try to seceded, they are all of a sudden rebels against "our country". If they were an independent small nation, at least they can seek allies; but once they have been incorporated into a country, all of a sudden it becomes a "domestic affair" and other nations are loath to intervene.

That's my two cents.

I am from a former colony as well. Things are going OK.

Aren't you *still* a colony?

Pedrobear hit the nail. Much of the "tribal" fighting affecting countries comes from the fact there are different groups squeezed into an artificial state construction. Meddling because of natural resources exploit has to do much with tensions too. Of course, corruption and religious fanaticism have a good share of responsibility. But if states were formed on an ethnic-religious basis, many of these troubles would be gone. Wars for resources and territorial interests would still be fought, and infighting would still be rampant. But at least some things would be gone.

I think my position is wrong – the fault should lie with "the last/previous empire". Western colonialism is only a recent form of empire.

A lot of the problem these days comes from the "logic of empire", the idea that once a part of the country has been legitimately incorporated into the whole, it should continue to be so.

And all the problems in the U.S. are caused by the British and all the problems in Europe were caused by the Romans. So it's all the fault of Rome.

I'll just shut up now…

Wiznard, you actually believe that? Lets find some Incan silver miners in Potosi, some Chinese coolies, and a couple of west African slaves, one owned by a southerner and another by a Belgian, and ask them to moderate a debate between two wealthy white property owners.

Wiznard, you actually believe that? Lets find some silver miners in Potosi, chinese coolies, and west African slaves and ask them to moderate a debate between two wealthy white property owners.

Sixty years isn't very long for a country to have settled down to business.

Look at Britain post 1066 and the US post 1783.

Some learned folks have decided that other countries shouldn't be allowed to evolve and that more "advanced" countries need to intervene in internecine conflicts.

Better to let the parties involved settle their differences and move on. It takes time and is a nasty business but it is nature's way.

Nope Canada is an independent country with the Queen of Canada as Head of State. A great example of a peaceful transfer of power.

Which former colon are you in Pedrobear?

You got the Queen on your money – you're a colony.

I'm from Singapore, where transfer of power was not exactly violent, but the aftermath was.

You got the Queen on your money – you're a colony.

Technically it's a personal union. The Statute of Westminster and the Constitution Act of 1982 says that whilst the Crown is still head of state, the Government of Canada is no longer part of the Government of the United Kingdom and other associated territories and dependencies and etc.

*Not sure if I am being trolled, or Canadian sense of humour*

In all seriousness and without getting into the weeds of constitutional law, prior to 1982 UK's Parliament had control of our Constitution and all changes to it had to go though London (although with the advice and consent of the Canadian Parliament). On March 29, 1982 the Queen of the United Kingdom and Associated Territories etc… gave Royal assent to the Canada Act of 1982 which stated that all further acts originating from Westminster no-longer had jurisdiction over Canada, and on April 17th 1982, as Queen of Canada, Queen Elizabeth signed the Constitution Act of 1982 which is the current constitution of Canada.

It can get a bit hard to wrap one's head around it at times, but the Queen of the UK and the Queen of Canada may inhabit the same physical body, but are distinct legal persons.

For what it's worth, here's the wiki article about the Canadian Monarchy. link

TIA … Today you rarely hear on the news the word "islamist" with anything positive before or after it. Like islamists build a girls school, islamists help Doctors
Without Borders with inoculations for children, islamists speakout against honor killings, islamists speak out against forced marriages of girls under 16 to middle age men, etc., etc., etc., etc. …

Pedrobear is correct in that the governments formed by the colonial powers forced different, often conflicting, groups together. Peoples that normally lived in small communities distances apart were rounded up and forced to live together, a situation that carried into today which has caused much conflict (not to mention disease).
60 years is not much time at all to recover, particulary when the colonial powers in question basically abandoned the colonies in Africa in a state of mess rather than create a smooth and stable transition of power. The United States hasn't fully recovered from the Civil War. How many years has that been, again? Nobody can place a time limit on recovery, each nation and people are different.
The ensuing conflicts have much to do with the state of the colonies that the empires left them in and the continuing interests of some nations to keep others from progressing.
I don't pretend to have done much research on this topic, but I've read a bit here and there as part of my larger interest in the colonization of Africa in the 19th century.