|
|
|
|
|
|
by yakshemash
3717 days ago
|
|
|
If the people choose independence, for better or worse, there's nothing that the west could have done about it. What do you suggest, that colonialists crush the independence movements to keep governing? That would fly in the face of what one could call basic decent governance. Not to mention the intention of the colonizers which very arguably was to extract value for themselves first, and then maybe help africans accomplish something somewhere down the list. |
|
|
From History books I've read and talks with the older guys, the British pursued a divide and conquer approach to keep the country dependent for a long time.
The Western part of Nigeria had the highest rate of education (still does). The Easterners were more interested in business than in school or politics. And the Northerners had the worst education rates, procreated regardless of resources to take care of the children but were very obedient.
So the British pushed for them to enter the military. And they did enmasse. Till date, the military training facilities still exist only in the northern states.
The string of coups, looting and stupid policies that dragged the country down were done mainly by the Northern born heads of states e.g. Buhari, Abacha, IBB. They are interesting reads btw.
"Together we stand, divided we fall" I believe is a lesson these countries need to internalize FIRST, before any meaningful progress can be achieved. And this bonding is easy to achieve.
"Nothing bonds like having a common enemy." - Blair Warren.
US presidents have always done a good job of providing a clear enemy. For their founding, the enemies changed at different times. From the Indians, to the black slaves, and finally to the British.
Later, it was communism. The time when the USSR was the enemy resulted in a lot of innovations and development (internet, satellite launch, moon landing...) for the country.