It seems odd to talk about the “need” for a powerful black nation.
How can such a nation hope to be powerful when it isn’t diverse and its competitors are? The lack of diversity by the absence of whites and Asians will make them weaker, right?
And in the diverse Western world where the last but one President of the USA was black, what makes the USA a not-black power?
Anyone who suggests that racism is a concept inherent in any group other than “whites” is, as the public in the US and UK have been educated to know, is racist. That should end any further discussion on the matter.
Anyone who suggests that racism is a concept inherent in any group other than “whites” is, as the public in the US and UK have been educated to know, is racist. That should end any further discussion on the matter.
Nell Clover
1 year ago
It seems odd to talk about the “need” for a powerful black nation.
How can such a nation hope to be powerful when it isn’t diverse and its competitors are? The lack of diversity by the absence of whites and Asians will make them weaker, right?
And in the diverse Western world where the last but one President of the USA was black, what makes the USA a not-black power?
Last edited 1 year ago by Nell Clover
Stephen Davies
1 year ago
The key thing about Obi is that he is Igbo. Nigeria is a multi-national state but dominated demographically by three of them – Hausa (North), Yoruba (SouthWest) and Igbo (SouthEast). It’s the Yoruba and the Hausa who have dominated politics since the civil war, when the Igbo tried to break away as Biafra. The three nations have very different cultures and traditions, reflected in lots of Nigerian jokes that play up to the stereotypes about the three nations (Hausa brave and martial but not very bright, Yoruba cunning and charming, Igbo hard working and thrifty). If he wins it will not only mean that the Igbo tradition has reasserted itself but that he has managed to get support outside the Southeast particularly in Lagos and the West. That would break a stable but ultimately destructive deadlock between North and South that has held since the 1970s – it would offer real opportunities for that reason.
Stephen Davies
1 year ago
The key thing about Obi is that he is Igbo. Nigeria is a multi-national state but dominated demographically by three of them – Hausa (North), Yoruba (SouthWest) and Igbo (SouthEast). It’s the Yoruba and the Hausa who have dominated politics since the civil war, when the Igbo tried to break away as Biafra. The three nations have very different cultures and traditions, reflected in lots of Nigerian jokes that play up to the stereotypes about the three nations (Hausa brave and martial but not very bright, Yoruba cunning and charming, Igbo hard working and thrifty). If he wins it will not only mean that the Igbo tradition has reasserted itself but that he has managed to get support outside the Southeast particularly in Lagos and the West. That would break a stable but ultimately destructive deadlock between North and South that has held since the 1970s – it would offer real opportunities for that reason.
Rob N
1 year ago
“A win for Obi, on the other hand, would be the Nigerian equivalent of Barack Obama’s 2008 election victory”.
And until that point I thought Obi might be a good President.
Rob N
1 year ago
“A win for Obi, on the other hand, would be the Nigerian equivalent of Barack Obama’s 2008 election victory”.
And until that point I thought Obi might be a good President.
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Thanks did this article. Very informative about a country I know little about. Good luck Obi!!
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Thanks did this article. Very informative about a country I know little about. Good luck Obi!!
Kevin Hansen
1 year ago
“he turned a rotten situation into a bad one”
Would this Governor consider standing for office in the UK at all? We could do with a boost.
The quoted comment seems admirably realistic rather than a gaff. But then journalistically any display of honesty tends to be regarded as a gaff.
Kevin Hansen
1 year ago
“he turned a rotten situation into a bad one”
Would this Governor consider standing for office in the UK at all? We could do with a boost.
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
“Considered impossible”??? Barack Obama was elected because he is mixed race. It was his major advantage as a candidate, which is why the Democrats threw over the presumptive first woman president, Hillary Clinton. His skin color made him bullet-proof: any criticism of his policies to “fundamentally transform” the United States was decried as “racist”, which is far worse than “sexist” would have been for Clinton. Very early in his first campaign, TV stars like Janeanne Garafalo (sp?) were trotted out to claim that objection to Obama’s stated plan was “straight up hatin’ on a black man”. As soon as I saw that, I knew that was the scheme.
Obama presented himself to the American people as a Black person, and did not project his actual 50:50 mixed race inheritance. He promoted Black identity politics at a crucial time in USA history when he could have used his genuine mixed race credentials/identity to appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate and might thereby have promoted racial harmony, rather than the deepened divisions and intersectional intolerance with which the world lives today, not just the USA.
Obama presented himself to the American people as a Black person, and did not project his actual 50:50 mixed race inheritance. He promoted Black identity politics at a crucial time in USA history when he could have used his genuine mixed race credentials/identity to appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate and might thereby have promoted racial harmony, rather than the deepened divisions and intersectional intolerance with which the world lives today, not just the USA.
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
“Considered impossible”??? Barack Obama was elected because he is mixed race. It was his major advantage as a candidate, which is why the Democrats threw over the presumptive first woman president, Hillary Clinton. His skin color made him bullet-proof: any criticism of his policies to “fundamentally transform” the United States was decried as “racist”, which is far worse than “sexist” would have been for Clinton. Very early in his first campaign, TV stars like Janeanne Garafalo (sp?) were trotted out to claim that objection to Obama’s stated plan was “straight up hatin’ on a black man”. As soon as I saw that, I knew that was the scheme.
Last edited 1 year ago by Allison Barrows
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
When ‘we’*granted Nigeria Independence in 1960 the population was about 45 million, now it is close to 225 million.
No wonder they have a problem.
Actually, they don’t.
According to World Bank numbers (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST), at the time of Nigerian independence, Britain’s population density was 218/sq km. Nigeria’s density in 2020 was 229/sq km. (For comparison, the 2020 numbers were 277 for Britain and 518 for the Netherlands.) It’s hard to argue that overpopulation is a problem.
What has happened has been a revolution in health in Nigeria. Babies don’t die in droves any more, nor are people so prone to be incapacitated by disease. Hence the rise in population and the vibrant economy.
It is not hard at all to argue that overpopulation is the problem. Overpopulation is not about density of people per unit area, but the ability of a nation to feed those people. In that regard, most of Africa is overpopulated. Most of Africa is a net importer of food and, most of East Africa (in particular) has heavily degraded soils which will be further degraded as the populations of these places quadruple over the next 80 years.
Being a net importer of food is not a sign of overpopulation. Britain has been a net importer of food for nearly two centuries. The problem is too many people live by subsistence farming, which is horribly inefficient. They live this way because they are poor. So the solution is economic growth.
You are correct that the solution is economic growth. The solution is not, as you suggest, population growth.
Had Nigeria kept its population in check, and made sure its economic growth rate exceeded its population growth rate, it would be a far richer nation than it is now.
The aftermath of the plague in Britain produced huge increases in wages and quality of living (for those who survived) precisely because of skills shortages and labour scarcity, both of which were credited for realigning society for the better.
It is the mantra of the mad Ponzi scheme capitalists in the UK that an ever increasing population is an economic good. It is an economic good for a small elite, and an economic penalty to ordinary people.
The world is mechanising more and more. There are fewer jobs each year for low skilled labour. Rampant population growth will therefore simply produce very low wages and very low economic output, and this will increasingly be the case in countries in Africa as the world mechanises.
The China model, in my view, has been and gone and will not be repeated.
You are correct that the solution is economic growth. The solution is not, as you suggest, population growth.
Had Nigeria kept its population in check, and made sure its economic growth rate exceeded its population growth rate, it would be a far richer nation than it is now.
The aftermath of the plague in Britain produced huge increases in wages and quality of living (for those who survived) precisely because of skills shortages and labour scarcity, both of which were credited for realigning society for the better.
It is the mantra of the mad Ponzi scheme capitalists in the UK that an ever increasing population is an economic good. It is an economic good for a small elite, and an economic penalty to ordinary people.
The world is mechanising more and more. There are fewer jobs each year for low skilled labour. Rampant population growth will therefore simply produce very low wages and very low economic output, and this will increasingly be the case in countries in Africa as the world mechanises.
The China model, in my view, has been and gone and will not be repeated.
Nigeria’s population is projected to reach or even exceed 1 billion by the end of this century. By any reckoning that is over-population; especially if, as Hayden rightly points out, a nation is unable to feed its population. Add to that the problems of endemic corruption, poverty and violence, and things to not look that rosy for Nigeria by the turn of the next century.
Being a net importer of food is not a sign of overpopulation. Britain has been a net importer of food for nearly two centuries. The problem is too many people live by subsistence farming, which is horribly inefficient. They live this way because they are poor. So the solution is economic growth.
Nigeria’s population is projected to reach or even exceed 1 billion by the end of this century. By any reckoning that is over-population; especially if, as Hayden rightly points out, a nation is unable to feed its population. Add to that the problems of endemic corruption, poverty and violence, and things to not look that rosy for Nigeria by the turn of the next century.
It is not hard at all to argue that overpopulation is the problem. Overpopulation is not about density of people per unit area, but the ability of a nation to feed those people. In that regard, most of Africa is overpopulated. Most of Africa is a net importer of food and, most of East Africa (in particular) has heavily degraded soils which will be further degraded as the populations of these places quadruple over the next 80 years.
Actually, they don’t.
According to World Bank numbers (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST), at the time of Nigerian independence, Britain’s population density was 218/sq km. Nigeria’s density in 2020 was 229/sq km. (For comparison, the 2020 numbers were 277 for Britain and 518 for the Netherlands.) It’s hard to argue that overpopulation is a problem.
What has happened has been a revolution in health in Nigeria. Babies don’t die in droves any more, nor are people so prone to be incapacitated by disease. Hence the rise in population and the vibrant economy.
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
When ‘we’*granted Nigeria Independence in 1960 the population was about 45 million, now it is close to 225 million.
No wonder they have a problem.
(* The British Empire.)
John Pade
1 year ago
A year from now it is too likely that this article will join its fellows on the heap of essays that have predicted some kind of African turning point.
There has been no turning point. Nowhere, ever.
In its defense, it recognizes the insurmountable difficulties Nigeria faces: Big Man politics, rampant and justified distrust in everyone and everything, corruption as an aspiration. But the word is insurmountable. Not difficult, not challenging.
African politics is grownup king of the mountain. The goal is to throw down the man on top and be king yourself. That is the end, the only end. There is no other purpose.
John Pade
1 year ago
A year from now it is too likely that this article will join its fellows on the heap of essays that have predicted some kind of African turning point.
There has been no turning point. Nowhere, ever.
In its defense, it recognizes the insurmountable difficulties Nigeria faces: Big Man politics, rampant and justified distrust in everyone and everything, corruption as an aspiration. But the word is insurmountable. Not difficult, not challenging.
African politics is grownup king of the mountain. The goal is to throw down the man on top and be king yourself. That is the end, the only end. There is no other purpose.
Robert Hochbaum
1 year ago
“A successful Nigeria would be the pride and power of not only Africa but of blackness as a whole…”
I was surprised to read this. So, an entire continent of different ethnic groups that exhibit ‘blackness’ will find common pride (and exert power!) because one group has success in one country? This pride could be the dawn of a new continental African unity based on ‘blackness’? I live in the US and am now classified as a person who exhibits ‘whiteness’ even though I ‘identify’ (I loathe that term) much more with many of my mid-western neighbors who exhibit ‘blackness’ than I do with people who live in San Francisco that exhibit ‘whiteness’. In the time before terms like ‘blackness’ and ‘whiteness’ showed up, how much did skin color matter as a unifying factor in the decades leading up to WW1 and WW2? Or, during the Bolshevik Revolution? Or, during the Holodomor? And that’s just the biggies in Europe during the twentieth century. If we were to include people of different skin tones, we could look at what happened in China during the cultural revolution. Again, just in the twentieth century. On and on.
What of Rwanda? I don’t recall any discussions of black people killing each other. It was Hutus killing Tutsis. Brutally. No matter the skin color, the Hutus knew exactly who the Tutsis were and vice versa. That was the first time I heard the word genocide being applied to something happening in my lifetime and it wasn’t that long ago. Then again, if they had had a common sense of ‘blackness’, perhaps the Hutus wouldn’t have slaughtered thousands and thousands Tutsis. You never know, eh?
Can ‘blackness’ (whatever that is) unite an entire continent (or even a country)? Color me skeptical… But, let’s assume you’re right. Maybe there will be enough pride in ‘blackness’ across Africa one day to unite the millions and millions of people who belong to the numerous (hundreds? thousands?) of unique ethnic groups living in the large number of distinct nations. Let’s assume they all share the pride of ‘blackness’. I have one suggestion – pay close attention to the groups that hold the POWER you only briefly mentioned. If history is any indicator, skin color will matter little when the groups that have power decide to exercise it over the ones that don’t.
Finally, I can’t believe you referenced Wakanda – a fantasy land of make-believe superheroes created by Disney. Really? The again, when you wish upon a star, it doesn’t matter who you are, dreams may really come true!
Last edited 1 year ago by Robert Hochbaum
Robert Hochbaum
1 year ago
“A successful Nigeria would be the pride and power of not only Africa but of blackness as a whole…”
I was surprised to read this. So, an entire continent of different ethnic groups that exhibit ‘blackness’ will find common pride (and exert power!) because one group has success in one country? This pride could be the dawn of a new continental African unity based on ‘blackness’? I live in the US and am now classified as a person who exhibits ‘whiteness’ even though I ‘identify’ (I loathe that term) much more with many of my mid-western neighbors who exhibit ‘blackness’ than I do with people who live in San Francisco that exhibit ‘whiteness’. In the time before terms like ‘blackness’ and ‘whiteness’ showed up, how much did skin color matter as a unifying factor in the decades leading up to WW1 and WW2? Or, during the Bolshevik Revolution? Or, during the Holodomor? And that’s just the biggies in Europe during the twentieth century. If we were to include people of different skin tones, we could look at what happened in China during the cultural revolution. Again, just in the twentieth century. On and on.
What of Rwanda? I don’t recall any discussions of black people killing each other. It was Hutus killing Tutsis. Brutally. No matter the skin color, the Hutus knew exactly who the Tutsis were and vice versa. That was the first time I heard the word genocide being applied to something happening in my lifetime and it wasn’t that long ago. Then again, if they had had a common sense of ‘blackness’, perhaps the Hutus wouldn’t have slaughtered thousands and thousands Tutsis. You never know, eh?
Can ‘blackness’ (whatever that is) unite an entire continent (or even a country)? Color me skeptical… But, let’s assume you’re right. Maybe there will be enough pride in ‘blackness’ across Africa one day to unite the millions and millions of people who belong to the numerous (hundreds? thousands?) of unique ethnic groups living in the large number of distinct nations. Let’s assume they all share the pride of ‘blackness’. I have one suggestion – pay close attention to the groups that hold the POWER you only briefly mentioned. If history is any indicator, skin color will matter little when the groups that have power decide to exercise it over the ones that don’t.
Finally, I can’t believe you referenced Wakanda – a fantasy land of make-believe superheroes created by Disney. Really? The again, when you wish upon a star, it doesn’t matter who you are, dreams may really come true!
Last edited 1 year ago by Robert Hochbaum
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Very interesting article, which chimes with my recall of having read somewhere that at some point in the not too distant future, Nigeria’s population will have grown to 750m, even as China’s shrinks towards a comparable figure.
And given that 50% of Nigerians plan on emigrating, you can imagine what that means for geopolitics both in the region and internationally.
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Very interesting article, which chimes with my recall of having read somewhere that at some point in the not too distant future, Nigeria’s population will have grown to 750m, even as China’s shrinks towards a comparable figure.
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago
Add to the genocide in Rwanda the genocides in Darfur, and the now rarely mentioned genocide of 1 million+ Igbos by other ethnic Nigerians between 1967 and 1970, and the case for a utopian unity of “blackness” in Nigeria, let alone the whole of the African continent, does suggest more of a Disney fantasy than reality.
It is a concept that plays rather better as a counterpoint in Western nations currently obsessed with their stain of “whiteness” than it does in Africa.
Douglas McNeish
1 year ago
Add to the genocide in Rwanda the genocides in Darfur, and the now rarely mentioned genocide of 1 million+ Igbos by other ethnic Nigerians between 1967 and 1970, and the case for a utopian unity of “blackness” in Nigeria, let alone the whole of the African continent, does suggest more of a Disney fantasy than reality.
It is a concept that plays rather better as a counterpoint in Western nations currently obsessed with their stain of “whiteness” than it does in Africa.
It seems odd to talk about the “need” for a powerful black nation.
How can such a nation hope to be powerful when it isn’t diverse and its competitors are? The lack of diversity by the absence of whites and Asians will make them weaker, right?
And in the diverse Western world where the last but one President of the USA was black, what makes the USA a not-black power?
Anyone who suggests that racism is a concept inherent in any group other than “whites” is, as the public in the US and UK have been educated to know, is racist. That should end any further discussion on the matter.
Anyone who suggests that racism is a concept inherent in any group other than “whites” is, as the public in the US and UK have been educated to know, is racist. That should end any further discussion on the matter.
It seems odd to talk about the “need” for a powerful black nation.
How can such a nation hope to be powerful when it isn’t diverse and its competitors are? The lack of diversity by the absence of whites and Asians will make them weaker, right?
And in the diverse Western world where the last but one President of the USA was black, what makes the USA a not-black power?
The key thing about Obi is that he is Igbo. Nigeria is a multi-national state but dominated demographically by three of them – Hausa (North), Yoruba (SouthWest) and Igbo (SouthEast). It’s the Yoruba and the Hausa who have dominated politics since the civil war, when the Igbo tried to break away as Biafra. The three nations have very different cultures and traditions, reflected in lots of Nigerian jokes that play up to the stereotypes about the three nations (Hausa brave and martial but not very bright, Yoruba cunning and charming, Igbo hard working and thrifty). If he wins it will not only mean that the Igbo tradition has reasserted itself but that he has managed to get support outside the Southeast particularly in Lagos and the West. That would break a stable but ultimately destructive deadlock between North and South that has held since the 1970s – it would offer real opportunities for that reason.
The key thing about Obi is that he is Igbo. Nigeria is a multi-national state but dominated demographically by three of them – Hausa (North), Yoruba (SouthWest) and Igbo (SouthEast). It’s the Yoruba and the Hausa who have dominated politics since the civil war, when the Igbo tried to break away as Biafra. The three nations have very different cultures and traditions, reflected in lots of Nigerian jokes that play up to the stereotypes about the three nations (Hausa brave and martial but not very bright, Yoruba cunning and charming, Igbo hard working and thrifty). If he wins it will not only mean that the Igbo tradition has reasserted itself but that he has managed to get support outside the Southeast particularly in Lagos and the West. That would break a stable but ultimately destructive deadlock between North and South that has held since the 1970s – it would offer real opportunities for that reason.
“A win for Obi, on the other hand, would be the Nigerian equivalent of Barack Obama’s 2008 election victory”.
And until that point I thought Obi might be a good President.
“A win for Obi, on the other hand, would be the Nigerian equivalent of Barack Obama’s 2008 election victory”.
And until that point I thought Obi might be a good President.
Thanks did this article. Very informative about a country I know little about. Good luck Obi!!
Thanks did this article. Very informative about a country I know little about. Good luck Obi!!
“he turned a rotten situation into a bad one”
Would this Governor consider standing for office in the UK at all? We could do with a boost.
The quoted comment seems admirably realistic rather than a gaff. But then journalistically any display of honesty tends to be regarded as a gaff.
The quoted comment seems admirably realistic rather than a gaff. But then journalistically any display of honesty tends to be regarded as a gaff.
“he turned a rotten situation into a bad one”
Would this Governor consider standing for office in the UK at all? We could do with a boost.
“Considered impossible”??? Barack Obama was elected because he is mixed race. It was his major advantage as a candidate, which is why the Democrats threw over the presumptive first woman president, Hillary Clinton. His skin color made him bullet-proof: any criticism of his policies to “fundamentally transform” the United States was decried as “racist”, which is far worse than “sexist” would have been for Clinton. Very early in his first campaign, TV stars like Janeanne Garafalo (sp?) were trotted out to claim that objection to Obama’s stated plan was “straight up hatin’ on a black man”. As soon as I saw that, I knew that was the scheme.
Surely even the Obama person, tanned as he is, was preferable to the Hillary Gorgon?
Obama presented himself to the American people as a Black person, and did not project his actual 50:50 mixed race inheritance. He promoted Black identity politics at a crucial time in USA history when he could have used his genuine mixed race credentials/identity to appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate and might thereby have promoted racial harmony, rather than the deepened divisions and intersectional intolerance with which the world lives today, not just the USA.
Surely even the Obama person, tanned as he is, was preferable to the Hillary Gorgon?
Obama presented himself to the American people as a Black person, and did not project his actual 50:50 mixed race inheritance. He promoted Black identity politics at a crucial time in USA history when he could have used his genuine mixed race credentials/identity to appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate and might thereby have promoted racial harmony, rather than the deepened divisions and intersectional intolerance with which the world lives today, not just the USA.
“Considered impossible”??? Barack Obama was elected because he is mixed race. It was his major advantage as a candidate, which is why the Democrats threw over the presumptive first woman president, Hillary Clinton. His skin color made him bullet-proof: any criticism of his policies to “fundamentally transform” the United States was decried as “racist”, which is far worse than “sexist” would have been for Clinton. Very early in his first campaign, TV stars like Janeanne Garafalo (sp?) were trotted out to claim that objection to Obama’s stated plan was “straight up hatin’ on a black man”. As soon as I saw that, I knew that was the scheme.
When ‘we’*granted Nigeria Independence in 1960 the population was about 45 million, now it is close to 225 million.
No wonder they have a problem.
(* The British Empire.)
Actually, they don’t.
According to World Bank numbers (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST), at the time of Nigerian independence, Britain’s population density was 218/sq km. Nigeria’s density in 2020 was 229/sq km. (For comparison, the 2020 numbers were 277 for Britain and 518 for the Netherlands.) It’s hard to argue that overpopulation is a problem.
What has happened has been a revolution in health in Nigeria. Babies don’t die in droves any more, nor are people so prone to be incapacitated by disease. Hence the rise in population and the vibrant economy.
It is not hard at all to argue that overpopulation is the problem. Overpopulation is not about density of people per unit area, but the ability of a nation to feed those people. In that regard, most of Africa is overpopulated. Most of Africa is a net importer of food and, most of East Africa (in particular) has heavily degraded soils which will be further degraded as the populations of these places quadruple over the next 80 years.
Being a net importer of food is not a sign of overpopulation. Britain has been a net importer of food for nearly two centuries. The problem is too many people live by subsistence farming, which is horribly inefficient. They live this way because they are poor. So the solution is economic growth.
You are correct that the solution is economic growth. The solution is not, as you suggest, population growth.
Had Nigeria kept its population in check, and made sure its economic growth rate exceeded its population growth rate, it would be a far richer nation than it is now.
The aftermath of the plague in Britain produced huge increases in wages and quality of living (for those who survived) precisely because of skills shortages and labour scarcity, both of which were credited for realigning society for the better.
It is the mantra of the mad Ponzi scheme capitalists in the UK that an ever increasing population is an economic good. It is an economic good for a small elite, and an economic penalty to ordinary people.
The world is mechanising more and more. There are fewer jobs each year for low skilled labour. Rampant population growth will therefore simply produce very low wages and very low economic output, and this will increasingly be the case in countries in Africa as the world mechanises.
The China model, in my view, has been and gone and will not be repeated.
You are correct that the solution is economic growth. The solution is not, as you suggest, population growth.
Had Nigeria kept its population in check, and made sure its economic growth rate exceeded its population growth rate, it would be a far richer nation than it is now.
The aftermath of the plague in Britain produced huge increases in wages and quality of living (for those who survived) precisely because of skills shortages and labour scarcity, both of which were credited for realigning society for the better.
It is the mantra of the mad Ponzi scheme capitalists in the UK that an ever increasing population is an economic good. It is an economic good for a small elite, and an economic penalty to ordinary people.
The world is mechanising more and more. There are fewer jobs each year for low skilled labour. Rampant population growth will therefore simply produce very low wages and very low economic output, and this will increasingly be the case in countries in Africa as the world mechanises.
The China model, in my view, has been and gone and will not be repeated.
Nigeria’s population is projected to reach or even exceed 1 billion by the end of this century. By any reckoning that is over-population; especially if, as Hayden rightly points out, a nation is unable to feed its population. Add to that the problems of endemic corruption, poverty and violence, and things to not look that rosy for Nigeria by the turn of the next century.
Being a net importer of food is not a sign of overpopulation. Britain has been a net importer of food for nearly two centuries. The problem is too many people live by subsistence farming, which is horribly inefficient. They live this way because they are poor. So the solution is economic growth.
Nigeria’s population is projected to reach or even exceed 1 billion by the end of this century. By any reckoning that is over-population; especially if, as Hayden rightly points out, a nation is unable to feed its population. Add to that the problems of endemic corruption, poverty and violence, and things to not look that rosy for Nigeria by the turn of the next century.
But the problem is they all have Smart phones and want to be over here! Hence the Lilos in the Channel.
It is not hard at all to argue that overpopulation is the problem. Overpopulation is not about density of people per unit area, but the ability of a nation to feed those people. In that regard, most of Africa is overpopulated. Most of Africa is a net importer of food and, most of East Africa (in particular) has heavily degraded soils which will be further degraded as the populations of these places quadruple over the next 80 years.
But the problem is they all have Smart phones and want to be over here! Hence the Lilos in the Channel.
Actually, they don’t.
According to World Bank numbers (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST), at the time of Nigerian independence, Britain’s population density was 218/sq km. Nigeria’s density in 2020 was 229/sq km. (For comparison, the 2020 numbers were 277 for Britain and 518 for the Netherlands.) It’s hard to argue that overpopulation is a problem.
What has happened has been a revolution in health in Nigeria. Babies don’t die in droves any more, nor are people so prone to be incapacitated by disease. Hence the rise in population and the vibrant economy.
When ‘we’*granted Nigeria Independence in 1960 the population was about 45 million, now it is close to 225 million.
No wonder they have a problem.
(* The British Empire.)
A year from now it is too likely that this article will join its fellows on the heap of essays that have predicted some kind of African turning point.
There has been no turning point. Nowhere, ever.
In its defense, it recognizes the insurmountable difficulties Nigeria faces: Big Man politics, rampant and justified distrust in everyone and everything, corruption as an aspiration. But the word is insurmountable. Not difficult, not challenging.
African politics is grownup king of the mountain. The goal is to throw down the man on top and be king yourself. That is the end, the only end. There is no other purpose.
A year from now it is too likely that this article will join its fellows on the heap of essays that have predicted some kind of African turning point.
There has been no turning point. Nowhere, ever.
In its defense, it recognizes the insurmountable difficulties Nigeria faces: Big Man politics, rampant and justified distrust in everyone and everything, corruption as an aspiration. But the word is insurmountable. Not difficult, not challenging.
African politics is grownup king of the mountain. The goal is to throw down the man on top and be king yourself. That is the end, the only end. There is no other purpose.
“A successful Nigeria would be the pride and power of not only Africa but of blackness as a whole…”
I was surprised to read this. So, an entire continent of different ethnic groups that exhibit ‘blackness’ will find common pride (and exert power!) because one group has success in one country? This pride could be the dawn of a new continental African unity based on ‘blackness’? I live in the US and am now classified as a person who exhibits ‘whiteness’ even though I ‘identify’ (I loathe that term) much more with many of my mid-western neighbors who exhibit ‘blackness’ than I do with people who live in San Francisco that exhibit ‘whiteness’. In the time before terms like ‘blackness’ and ‘whiteness’ showed up, how much did skin color matter as a unifying factor in the decades leading up to WW1 and WW2? Or, during the Bolshevik Revolution? Or, during the Holodomor? And that’s just the biggies in Europe during the twentieth century. If we were to include people of different skin tones, we could look at what happened in China during the cultural revolution. Again, just in the twentieth century. On and on.
What of Rwanda? I don’t recall any discussions of black people killing each other. It was Hutus killing Tutsis. Brutally. No matter the skin color, the Hutus knew exactly who the Tutsis were and vice versa. That was the first time I heard the word genocide being applied to something happening in my lifetime and it wasn’t that long ago. Then again, if they had had a common sense of ‘blackness’, perhaps the Hutus wouldn’t have slaughtered thousands and thousands Tutsis. You never know, eh?
Can ‘blackness’ (whatever that is) unite an entire continent (or even a country)? Color me skeptical… But, let’s assume you’re right. Maybe there will be enough pride in ‘blackness’ across Africa one day to unite the millions and millions of people who belong to the numerous (hundreds? thousands?) of unique ethnic groups living in the large number of distinct nations. Let’s assume they all share the pride of ‘blackness’. I have one suggestion – pay close attention to the groups that hold the POWER you only briefly mentioned. If history is any indicator, skin color will matter little when the groups that have power decide to exercise it over the ones that don’t.
Finally, I can’t believe you referenced Wakanda – a fantasy land of make-believe superheroes created by Disney. Really? The again, when you wish upon a star, it doesn’t matter who you are, dreams may really come true!
“A successful Nigeria would be the pride and power of not only Africa but of blackness as a whole…”
I was surprised to read this. So, an entire continent of different ethnic groups that exhibit ‘blackness’ will find common pride (and exert power!) because one group has success in one country? This pride could be the dawn of a new continental African unity based on ‘blackness’? I live in the US and am now classified as a person who exhibits ‘whiteness’ even though I ‘identify’ (I loathe that term) much more with many of my mid-western neighbors who exhibit ‘blackness’ than I do with people who live in San Francisco that exhibit ‘whiteness’. In the time before terms like ‘blackness’ and ‘whiteness’ showed up, how much did skin color matter as a unifying factor in the decades leading up to WW1 and WW2? Or, during the Bolshevik Revolution? Or, during the Holodomor? And that’s just the biggies in Europe during the twentieth century. If we were to include people of different skin tones, we could look at what happened in China during the cultural revolution. Again, just in the twentieth century. On and on.
What of Rwanda? I don’t recall any discussions of black people killing each other. It was Hutus killing Tutsis. Brutally. No matter the skin color, the Hutus knew exactly who the Tutsis were and vice versa. That was the first time I heard the word genocide being applied to something happening in my lifetime and it wasn’t that long ago. Then again, if they had had a common sense of ‘blackness’, perhaps the Hutus wouldn’t have slaughtered thousands and thousands Tutsis. You never know, eh?
Can ‘blackness’ (whatever that is) unite an entire continent (or even a country)? Color me skeptical… But, let’s assume you’re right. Maybe there will be enough pride in ‘blackness’ across Africa one day to unite the millions and millions of people who belong to the numerous (hundreds? thousands?) of unique ethnic groups living in the large number of distinct nations. Let’s assume they all share the pride of ‘blackness’. I have one suggestion – pay close attention to the groups that hold the POWER you only briefly mentioned. If history is any indicator, skin color will matter little when the groups that have power decide to exercise it over the ones that don’t.
Finally, I can’t believe you referenced Wakanda – a fantasy land of make-believe superheroes created by Disney. Really? The again, when you wish upon a star, it doesn’t matter who you are, dreams may really come true!
Very interesting article, which chimes with my recall of having read somewhere that at some point in the not too distant future, Nigeria’s population will have grown to 750m, even as China’s shrinks towards a comparable figure.
And given that 50% of Nigerians plan on emigrating, you can imagine what that means for geopolitics both in the region and internationally.
And given that 50% of Nigerians plan on emigrating, you can imagine what that means for geopolitics both in the region and internationally.
Very interesting article, which chimes with my recall of having read somewhere that at some point in the not too distant future, Nigeria’s population will have grown to 750m, even as China’s shrinks towards a comparable figure.
Add to the genocide in Rwanda the genocides in Darfur, and the now rarely mentioned genocide of 1 million+ Igbos by other ethnic Nigerians between 1967 and 1970, and the case for a utopian unity of “blackness” in Nigeria, let alone the whole of the African continent, does suggest more of a Disney fantasy than reality.
It is a concept that plays rather better as a counterpoint in Western nations currently obsessed with their stain of “whiteness” than it does in Africa.
Add to the genocide in Rwanda the genocides in Darfur, and the now rarely mentioned genocide of 1 million+ Igbos by other ethnic Nigerians between 1967 and 1970, and the case for a utopian unity of “blackness” in Nigeria, let alone the whole of the African continent, does suggest more of a Disney fantasy than reality.
It is a concept that plays rather better as a counterpoint in Western nations currently obsessed with their stain of “whiteness” than it does in Africa.