4 ms·

People who actually lived in that time prefered the colonization administration as per article but progressive intelectuals from today know better. What more co

People who actually lived in that time prefered the colonization administration as per article but progressive intelectuals from today know better. What more could be said...

dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. There's obviously a lot of substance in a topic like this—an overwhelming amount really—and the idea of this place is to try not to collapse into the one or two pre-existing fixed points. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- trabant00 6y ago
  Nobody mentioning what the original article said: people of the time affected by what was going on chose the colonization administration as the lesser evil. Mentioning this is flaming? And completely dismissing the content of the article and pushing current trending political stances is not? Not to mention down voting anything that does not agree with "Europe bad, Africa good"? I think somebody needs to say these things, no matter how unpopular they are at the current moment. If you think otherwise though - your site your rules. Just say so and I am out.
  - dang 6y ago
    Mentioning it in a drive-by snarky comment is flamebait. We want thoughtful discussion here.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
jccalhoun 6y ago
That is NOT what the article says. It states: "In his 1947 book [...]Obafemi Awolowo, [wrote] “Given a choice from among white officials, [Nigerian] chiefs and educated Nigerians as the principal rulers of the country, the illiterate man today would exercise his preference for the three in the order in which they are named. He is convinced, and has good reasons to be, that he can always get better treatment from the white man than he could hope to get from the chiefs and the educated elements,” [...] "According to this, [...] many regular Nigerians seemed to sense a fairness in the British exercise of power that they were not so sure of in their own leaders." So one author says that SOME people thought that the British were fairer. We don't know how many. And we don't know if they were right or wrong.
- trabant00 6y ago
  > SOME people thought that the British were fairer. We don't know how many It's right there in the quote: "many" > And we don't know if they were right or wrong. That's your other quote "He is convinced, and has good reasons to be, that he can always get better treatment from the white man" - the author's opinion, who was not an illiterate obviously: "has good reasons". Being right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Their lives, their country, their right to decide. You think you know better what's good for them, don't you?

People who actually lived in that time prefered the colonization administration as per article but progressive intelectuals from today know better. What more could be said...

dang 6y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. There's obviously a lot of substance in a topic like this—an overwhelming amount really—and the idea of this place is to try not to collapse into the one or two pre-existing fixed points. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

trabant00 6y ago
Nobody mentioning what the original article said: people of the time affected by what was going on chose the colonization administration as the lesser evil. Mentioning this is flaming? And completely dismissing the content of the article and pushing current trending political stances is not? Not to mention down voting anything that does not agree with "Europe bad, Africa good"? I think somebody needs to say these things, no matter how unpopular they are at the current moment. If you think otherwise though - your site your rules. Just say so and I am out.
- dang 6y ago
  Mentioning it in a drive-by snarky comment is flamebait. We want thoughtful discussion here.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

jccalhoun 6y ago

That is NOT what the article says. It states: "In his 1947 book [...]Obafemi Awolowo, [wrote] “Given a choice from among white officials, [Nigerian] chiefs and educated Nigerians as the principal rulers of the country, the illiterate man today would exercise his preference for the three in the order in which they are named. He is convinced, and has good reasons to be, that he can always get better treatment from the white man than he could hope to get from the chiefs and the educated elements,” [...] "According to this, [...] many regular Nigerians seemed to sense a fairness in the British exercise of power that they were not so sure of in their own leaders." So one author says that SOME people thought that the British were fairer. We don't know how many. And we don't know if they were right or wrong.

trabant00 6y ago
> SOME people thought that the British were fairer. We don't know how many It's right there in the quote: "many" > And we don't know if they were right or wrong. That's your other quote "He is convinced, and has good reasons to be, that he can always get better treatment from the white man" - the author's opinion, who was not an illiterate obviously: "has good reasons". Being right or wrong has nothing to do with it. Their lives, their country, their right to decide. You think you know better what's good for them, don't you?