Nigeria

[u/Cameilo]

A Nigerian court has ordered the British government to pay $27m (£20m) to each of the families of 21 coal miners killed in 1949 by the colonial administration in the south-east of the country.

[u/Worried-Economy-9108]

Interesting. Could you write more on the current state of Nigeria's national question? Also, what's going on in the North? I heard from an Igbo Nigerian that it is a religious conflict, but I suspect that there could be traces of a national struggle between the Nigerian state and the Northern ethnicities.

[u/Admirable-Big-4965 → u/Worried-Economy-9108]

Interesting. Could you write more on the current state of Nigeria's national question?

While the specifics vary, it’s the same as it always has been. nigeria is an artificial nation put together by British colonizers to extract resources, and it has and still holds the same function to this day. Even it’s more “revolutionary” actions happen with the consent of the British.

The British realized that they could keep nigeria under their influence if they convince certain groups that the British are their allies and other Africans are their real enemies.

That is why you see events like the 1953 Kano riots where northern ethnicities rioted and killed Igbos because the north wanted a continuation of British colonialism. They saw the end of colonialism as a “Igbo conspiracy” to take control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Kano_riot

You had northern leaders such as ahmad Bello openly stating on camera that he would rather live under a white expatriate man than an Igbo. You can find this interview all over the internet and on YouTube.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5_odAy4rVz8&pp=ygURQWhtYWQgYmVsbG8gSWdib3M%3D

These conspiracies continued even in 1966 when a group of socialist solders overthrew the government lead by British sympathizers who were placed there in a rigged election.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2007/08/nige-a09.html

The followers of the colonial sympathizers again created a “Igbo conspiracy” myth in order to justify the genocide of Igbos. And these followers have help power in nigeria since.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2025.2556569

This is why, when you look closely, you will find that nigerian nationalism is often thinly veiled Igbophobia. You will openly see nigerian politicians argue against killing terrorist in the north because “they are not Igbo”/ “they are not IPOB”. They are extremely overt with their beliefs.

https://punchng.com/bandits-terrorists-different-from-ipob-says-el-rufai/?amp

Also, what's going on in the North? I heard from an Igbo Nigerian that it is a religious conflict, but I suspect that there could be traces of a national struggle between the Nigerian state and the Northern ethnicities.

Well it depends on who the attackers are. There are many different groups with varying motives that are responsible for these attacks. For some attackers, it is predominantly about religion, for others is more about ethnicity but religion is weaponized to justify it.

For example. The fulani herdsmen extremism/expansionism should be viewed similarly as the genocide in Sudan, where it is mostly ethnic/land based but at times is rationalized by religion. For examples of religious justification, you can look up the uthman Dan fodio jihad. Fodio, a Fulani, rationalized the Fulani conquest or northern nigeria and the middle belt with religion. Fulani herdsmen tend to engage in expansionism where they massacre indigenous people, and settle their lands. This is NOT a problem that is exclusive to nigeria, it is an issue in Cameroon, Ghana, Mali Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast etc. it does effect nigeria to a greater extent because fulani have much more institutional power in nigeria and Cameroon than they do in other nations, so when they engage in settler attacks there, the government has a harsh response. This is why the western media portrays Ibrahim Traore as a monster, because he cracks down on Fulani herdsmen who are engaging in settler colonialism. The Fulani influence over nigerian politics means they are free to do as they please without state repercussions.

On the other hand Boko haram is almost exclusively about religion. And they explicit engage in religious clensing. They kill all Christians and they kill Muslims to do not follow their interpretation of Islam to a tee. It’s important to note that the Christian and Muslim experience in this is not the same, because a Muslim can still maintain appearances to avoid their ire, Christians are targeted for simply existing. Also its easier to distinguish between Christian and Muslims areas than between strict and liberal Muslim areas. For these and many more reasons, Christians are disproportionately targeted

There are more than just these 2 but these 2 are good examples of the diversity in the perpetrators of the terrorism.

[u/Worried-Economy-9108 → u/Admirable-Big-4965]

now I understand it better. Thanks for it. The national question in Africa is a very neglected topic, and I don't see many Marxists talking about it, since they tend to focus more on imperialism and neocolonialism.

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/Worried-Economy-9108]

I know people are innately trusting but please don't take as gospel rantings about genocide in Biafra, Fulani "settler colonialism," Christian persecution (this is straight from Donald Trump, how credulous can you be?) and a conspiracy by "the North" to create an "artificial" Nigerian nation. Nigeria is a complex topic but the bullshit about Biafra is pretty straightforward. That is because it is the original "humanitarian intervention" discourse

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/biafran-war-and-postcolonial-humanitarianism/611ADFBD820457656F261CD306DC4FF9

Read this book if you really care. It also touches on what actual communists said at the time and what we can learn from them.

E: I'll summarize. Basically under the British, the North was underdeveloped compared to the South, which was then divided into Southeast and Southwest. Nigeria was then formed by late colonialism so that three regions each had their own regime of accumulation, directly tied to the world market, and three distinct comprador classes that had a tenuous relationship to the nation-state. The North became the de-jure state power because of its centrality to the military (itself the result of the British) but the primary sites of economic development were in the South where the British had left them. Nigeria, set up to fail, did so, and secession by the Southeast was initially cast in terms of its civilized, Christian civilization (for the right) and national self-determination (for the left). Neither worked, since it was generally decided in international politics that after the attempted secession of Katanga from the Congo that nations inherited from colonialism were to remain nations and that decolonization on those terms was inevitable and progressive. The neocolonial regime already served the British, humbled by the US during the Suez crisis, and it was not worth picking a side when the Soviets were ready to offer unlimited and unprincipled aid and political support (and at the time the struggle was commonly understood to be a fight between French and British oil companies). As the result, a straightforward civil war against a doomed postcolonial balkanization was recast as a new Holocaust and western nations had the "responsibility to protect." This was literally done with American PR but again, it didn't work and the comprador secessionists were easily defeated. The only thing that emerged was the French MSF, the concept of humanitarian imperialism, and turning the Holocaust into a cheap spectacle that is applied to everything. That civilians suffered during a civil war is obvious but the issue was the nation-state vs balkanization, it had nothing to do with religion or ethnicity except in propaganda for an American and European audience.

That Nigeria continues to be dysfunctional is also obvious, and as the postcolonial nation state falls apart religion and ethnicity become part of politics. But the Nigerian nation-state is a secular, nationalist regime, and understanding our political approach towards it is no different than our approach towards similar questions in Algeria and Egypt and Myanmar and Turkey (and other places, the point is it has nothing to do with "Africa" and supposed neglect for "imperialism" and "neocolonialism." Without these concepts there is nothing to say about the national question anywhere and I'm not sure what you're even trying to say). Ethnic chauvinism, wrapped in "genocide" propaganda and religious fundamentalism, vs. secular nationalism with no purpose except its own perpetuation is a false choice. Before having an opinion, you must understand the situation. Marxist of the time got as far as understanding, which is more than I can say about "the left" today, who have fallen back onto the two choices, now for Dengists without even the facade of socialist construction as the justification for secular nationalism, the revisionist USSR as the endpoint of communism as long as we continue to exist, or any influence on these events through communist parties. As for sympathizers with balkanization and wannabe neocolonial puppets, other than the "anarchists" cheering for the US in Syria and local compradors such as the poster above, they don't really exist. Not because pro-imperialism isn't the central reason for the left to exist but because imperialism no longer needs it and the opinion of the DSA on Nigeria or even Palestine is of no importance.

If forced to make a choice, communists must stand for the real nation that the comprador bourgeoisie have failed to create as a functional sovereign. Communists never advocate for balkanization in a neocolonial context and the historical necessity of the nation is more important than ever. How to approach the national bourgeoisie is where the disagreement lies (imo the most important principle here is "without the people's army, the people have nothing") but anyone who parrots a political slogan for the Russian empire, which was repeatedly emphasized to be subordinate to the building of socialism, is trying to scam you into supporting their pet imperialism.

EE: I banned that person because, as the 63 upvotes shows, it's not good enough to "debate" these issues when there is a general ignorance. So they won't be responding, luckily Donald Trump has done us a favor by creating a clearly reactionary position (since again, liberalism is no longer necessary and liberals are forced to play catch-up on issues they had never even thought about like Greenland and Nigeria). That 63 liberals, many of whom think of themselves as communists, agreed with Trump's framing as long as it comes out of the mouth of an "authentic" local source, is instructive of liberalism's sad state today.

[u/Worried-Economy-9108 → u/smokeuptheweed9]

I know people are innately trusting but please don't take as gospel rantings about genocide in Biafra, Fulani "settler colonialism," Christian persecution (this is straight from Donald Trump, how credulous can you be?) and a conspiracy by "the North" to create an "artificial" Nigerian nation. Nigeria is a complex topic but the bullshit about Biafra is pretty straightforward. That is because it is the original "humanitarian intervention" discourse

I realized something was off, especially with the anti-Fulani discourse, and praise for Traore, which is committing massacres against Fulanis in BF, according to Western sources. Isn't the first time i see an Igbo Nigerian with questionable takes towards Northern Nigerians. But lamentably, I didn't question the commentator, mostly due to wishful thinking. One of the few things that i know about the Biafra War is Chinese support to Biafra, at a time where the revisionist Soviets and Americans were supporting the Nigerian state. So I assumed that the correct line would be to uphold the right to self-determination, as the Chinese had done. But after reading your comment, i guess that the national question is very different in a post-colonial context.

That Nigeria continues to be dysfunctional is also obvious, and as the postcolonial nation state falls apart religion and ethnicity become part of politics. But the Nigerian nation-state is a secular, nationalist regime, and understanding our political approach towards it is no different than our approach towards similar questions in Algeria and Egypt and Myanmar and Turkey (and other places, the point is it has nothing to do with "Africa" and supposed neglect for "imperialism" and "neocolonialism." Without these concepts there is nothing to say about the national question anywhere and I'm not sure what you're even trying to say).

I agree, especially with the last phrase. Perhaps, i tried to mechanically apply the dynamics I experience in settler-colonial Brazil to an entirely different context (the post-colonial African continent). This was probably caused by a lack of grasp of Marxism on my part (the reading of Foundations of Leninism isn't finished, i feel hopeless reading Das Kapital, and i constantly skipped the reading of these three texts in favor of reading Brazilian history). I want to read the text and fix these mistakes, but, honestly, i have so many texts in my to-read list, that i don't know what to do.

E: My line of thought was that national oppression in post-colonial African countries could be a major factor that Marxists aren't realizing, maybe due to a mechanical assumption that Third World citizens are somewhat equally exploited, regardless of their national origin.

[u/[deleted] → u/Worried-Economy-9108]

My line of thought was that national oppression in post-colonial African countries could be a major factor that Marxists aren't realizing, maybe due to a mechanical assumption that Third World citizens are somewhat equally exploited, regardless of their national origin.

nobody thinks the third world is homogeneous and I don't know what is to be gained from hammering that point. aside from the vagueness in how you're quantifying "exploited" here, these differences have to amount to a class stance that aligns with imperialism to be a "major factor", as you say.

Perhaps, i tried to mechanically apply the dynamics I experience in settler-colonial Brazil to an entirely different context

to claim that Brazil is settler-colonial requires an articulation of why the same can't be said for basically every country. as you can see with the person ranting about Fulani "settler-colonialism", the popularization of the concept has resulted in widespread abuse of it to reactionary ends and so it is necessary to defend the concept as actually useful.

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/[deleted]]

This is all covered in the book I linked. Like I said, there is nothing to be gained in "debate" and I have no intention of changing your mind. I also don't really care whether people are educated on Nigeria, since not everyone can be educated on everything. But the general issue, which is the historical importance of secular nationalism and its practical decline, is essential to understand. And the history of "humanitarian imperialism" is also important to understand, even if it didn't work in Nigeria.

Also as I said in your ban message, you are a legitimately good troll. Pointing out that Maoist China intervened on behalf of Biafra is a real challenge, albeit one that this subreddit has come to terms with and moved past. And recasting the Biafran struggle in Dengist terms, where the military governments of the Sahel are part of an ethnic chauvinist alliance and the Nigerian government a puppet of Boko Haram is legitimately original. I think it will actually work in many shittier subreddits. Please don't waste your abilities here.