PART ONE
Emma leaves her home to her usual work place. She is a successful business woman, who will always take no for an answer when it has to do with what will take her time, if not her work. On several occasions, she has been reprimanded concerning her attitude towards men but she remains adamant. One fateful day, she was in her car when a young man drove passed hers and she recognized his face-her childhood friend. It has been years they lost contact and suddenly, their path meet again. what do you think she would do? drive after him? or would she just continue?
......
Emma was born on 8th June, 1989. She was born without a golden spoon but she is angelic. She is the last baby of the house of Mr. and Mrs. Nutshell and her awesomeness was all over the street of Dockingnim. Having got that favor from everyone around increased her ego and made her exceptional. She has sisters, Lora and Gabriella, but they are not quite like her. she lives her life like every other young girl and went to school like every other child in the neighbourhood. She went to Turkish Elementary Group of Schools, though it was a school for the rich but she was privileged to find herself in such an environment because of her brilliance. Every child would want to be like her being that she was a graceful and lucky child.
Emma has a friend named Henry. Henry is the second son of Mr. and Mrs. Chopkins. He was Emma's age mate and was also brilliant but their families were opposite in terms of finance. Both went to Turkish and the bound they share were tight. They were each other's first love because they were always found together. Henry was cute and gentle, he was equally smart so he was just a perfect match for Emma. Their families were not against their friendship but there was still this gap between them. It happened that one day, Henry had developed a rare sickness and it required an immediate treatment from a professional. His rich dad now decided to travel him out of the state. Henry had to leave the neighborhood for another place and without telling Emma, Henry left. Emma stayed for days getting into weeks and then months, Henry was no where to be found. Emma was perturbed because Henry was her best friend. After some months, she was able to forget her fondness to Henry and continue with her studies. Not after a while, tragedy stroke in the life of Emma. WATCH OUT FOR PART TWO.
Saturday, July 14, 2018
Sunday, July 8, 2018
Book to read.
From the collections of Juliet Marillier"Child of the Prophecy"
https://www.goodreads.combook/show/13925.Child_of_the_Prophecy
Books to read.
Not everything can be fixed with magic--young wizards Kit and Nita are having such a tough time coping with adolescence, they go their separate ways. But then Nita gets some bad news: Her mother has cancer, and it may be incurable--by medical or magical means.
From the collections of Diane Duame.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/116561.The_Wizard_s_Dilemma
The Enemy of Africa: Slavery
Should African be compensated for their loss during the Slave trade?
Arguments that Africans should not be compensated for their loss during the slave trade.
Records so far made us realise and in no doubt that slave trade was practically a global menace but Africans were seen to be the mostly affected. It really so to say, did a great harm to both the political,economic and social status of the African countries leaving them in a state of strandedness causing most developing states to venture into the strand of underdevelopment as a result of its effects.
According to ones understanding, Slave trade is an ancient and obnoxious act moreso an inhumane trading in persons. Usually this act is against normal human norms and societal values . Here it is so pathetic that human beings were made to replace objects which actually is meant for sale not the other way round and if the truth should be told any human treated in such manner should not only be compensated but also extra measures should be taken to see that such affected person or state should be accorded some level of credit provided that the cause wasn't of their own making. For instance, Africa as a continent, like I mentioned earlier was a victim of this omen and its obviously a bitter history that seems to have taken a lot from us but before one can conclude on whether Africans should be compensated on this or not, we ought to check the part Africans played in this.
From mid 17th century to 19th century , human beings were being used in exchange for goods in Africa by the Europeans thereby causing a backslide in Africa's progress because of lack of human resources. Slavery is indeed as old as Africa itself and part of African's history but it is a history that can incur an enmity between a Whiteman and an African man because of the kind of treatment generations before us went through in their hands. Africans suffered during that period, some blacks were forcefully taken and sold to the white men in exchange for material resources. Millions of both men and women including children and youths were being sold as slaves to the white man's land where they are been subjected to rigorous tasks and manual jobs against their wishes. Perhaps, many died on their way while journeying through the sahara or got into an accident or probably got infected with one disease or the other. This menance called slave trade is clearly one of the factors that caused backwardness of some African societies because the population of the blacks depreciated causing serious ecological imbalance. How? African men were captured in their numbers because they were considered strong and most suitable for the menial jobs and mostly the women were made to do some household chores though some were made to become concubines to their masters. Children who are expected to be the future leaders were taken away from the comfort of their homes to an unknown land perhaps may never find their way back to their fatherland and statistics gave a mind blowing record of 5-25 million slaves or probably more than were sold between the 17th century to the mid 19's. So painful that Parents lost their children, children as well watched their parents being taken away from them, sibling lost sibling, people never saw their loved ones again and yet Africans still survived till today.
Nevertheless, who are we to blame? The Europeans who bought the slaves or the Africans who did the selling. It is actually something that should be meticulously thought about to avoid casting blames at the wrong party. lets take for instance, when a willing buyer goes to the market to purchase goods, on getting there, discovered that there is no seller in the market to sell to him, what do you think he would do. You don't need a soothsayer to tell you that he has no other option than to go back home or better still look for another place. So therefore, I strongly believe that in any commercial institution, if there is no seller there won't' be a buyer and that answers the question asked earlier. Africans are invariably the ones responsible for what is happening to them that has to do with the negative effects of the slave trade if things are to be set straight. Going into more details, Africans according to records given, sold fellow Africans to the Europeans in exchange for items like cheap jewellries, mirror, ivory and the rest of them. Permit me if i quote from a famous philosopher who states that" Someone can not make you feel inferior without your permission" implying that the slaves from mostly Central and Western Africa were able to be treated like that from the Europeans because Africans who made provision of the slaves gave them the opportunity to do so. And that they were able to be trading with us because Africans provided them with what they wanted. For example, In states like Borno, sokoto, Sudan and other parts of Africa like Egypt were discovered to have dealt on slaves using them in implementing farm works and executing military strength though at times, they were used as gifts or preferably used in payment of debts or in exchange for something more important at that point in time.
Come to think of it, if Africans had insisted in trading in some other things other than humans, the Europeans wouldn't have seen humans to buy not to think of slaves. Though Africans are to be pitied considering the enormous effects, but still they are to be blamed. Some sources claimed that the slave trade brought about political development in some states because the money acquired from the trading boosted their economy but this is actually meaning that they valued money over their fellow humans. Also after much research, I discovered that the Europeans weren't the only buyers even Africans themselves patronised the slave traders till it was abolished strictly in the year 1838 meaning that Africans were also in support of such act. Truly, Africans were said, to an extent resisted but it was the unsafe masses that were being affected resisted the status of becoming slaves. At times, they carried an attack on the European slave traders to prevent them from continuing in such act but still they waged stronger because of support from some unconcerned Africans who were just interested in achieving their aims by making slaves available to them. By the way, slaving in Africa was essentially a matter of economic choice and if Africans should also seen to have gotten involved in the trading, why then should they be compensated? Whereas they are as guilty as the whitemen who bought the slaves . Therefore I put it to you that Africans are not to be reparated for the loss they suffered during the period of slave trade.
Edeh, Ogochukwu.P
Records so far made us realise and in no doubt that slave trade was practically a global menace but Africans were seen to be the mostly affected. It really so to say, did a great harm to both the political,economic and social status of the African countries leaving them in a state of strandedness causing most developing states to venture into the strand of underdevelopment as a result of its effects.
According to ones understanding, Slave trade is an ancient and obnoxious act moreso an inhumane trading in persons. Usually this act is against normal human norms and societal values . Here it is so pathetic that human beings were made to replace objects which actually is meant for sale not the other way round and if the truth should be told any human treated in such manner should not only be compensated but also extra measures should be taken to see that such affected person or state should be accorded some level of credit provided that the cause wasn't of their own making. For instance, Africa as a continent, like I mentioned earlier was a victim of this omen and its obviously a bitter history that seems to have taken a lot from us but before one can conclude on whether Africans should be compensated on this or not, we ought to check the part Africans played in this.
From mid 17th century to 19th century , human beings were being used in exchange for goods in Africa by the Europeans thereby causing a backslide in Africa's progress because of lack of human resources. Slavery is indeed as old as Africa itself and part of African's history but it is a history that can incur an enmity between a Whiteman and an African man because of the kind of treatment generations before us went through in their hands. Africans suffered during that period, some blacks were forcefully taken and sold to the white men in exchange for material resources. Millions of both men and women including children and youths were being sold as slaves to the white man's land where they are been subjected to rigorous tasks and manual jobs against their wishes. Perhaps, many died on their way while journeying through the sahara or got into an accident or probably got infected with one disease or the other. This menance called slave trade is clearly one of the factors that caused backwardness of some African societies because the population of the blacks depreciated causing serious ecological imbalance. How? African men were captured in their numbers because they were considered strong and most suitable for the menial jobs and mostly the women were made to do some household chores though some were made to become concubines to their masters. Children who are expected to be the future leaders were taken away from the comfort of their homes to an unknown land perhaps may never find their way back to their fatherland and statistics gave a mind blowing record of 5-25 million slaves or probably more than were sold between the 17th century to the mid 19's. So painful that Parents lost their children, children as well watched their parents being taken away from them, sibling lost sibling, people never saw their loved ones again and yet Africans still survived till today.
Nevertheless, who are we to blame? The Europeans who bought the slaves or the Africans who did the selling. It is actually something that should be meticulously thought about to avoid casting blames at the wrong party. lets take for instance, when a willing buyer goes to the market to purchase goods, on getting there, discovered that there is no seller in the market to sell to him, what do you think he would do. You don't need a soothsayer to tell you that he has no other option than to go back home or better still look for another place. So therefore, I strongly believe that in any commercial institution, if there is no seller there won't' be a buyer and that answers the question asked earlier. Africans are invariably the ones responsible for what is happening to them that has to do with the negative effects of the slave trade if things are to be set straight. Going into more details, Africans according to records given, sold fellow Africans to the Europeans in exchange for items like cheap jewellries, mirror, ivory and the rest of them. Permit me if i quote from a famous philosopher who states that" Someone can not make you feel inferior without your permission" implying that the slaves from mostly Central and Western Africa were able to be treated like that from the Europeans because Africans who made provision of the slaves gave them the opportunity to do so. And that they were able to be trading with us because Africans provided them with what they wanted. For example, In states like Borno, sokoto, Sudan and other parts of Africa like Egypt were discovered to have dealt on slaves using them in implementing farm works and executing military strength though at times, they were used as gifts or preferably used in payment of debts or in exchange for something more important at that point in time.
Come to think of it, if Africans had insisted in trading in some other things other than humans, the Europeans wouldn't have seen humans to buy not to think of slaves. Though Africans are to be pitied considering the enormous effects, but still they are to be blamed. Some sources claimed that the slave trade brought about political development in some states because the money acquired from the trading boosted their economy but this is actually meaning that they valued money over their fellow humans. Also after much research, I discovered that the Europeans weren't the only buyers even Africans themselves patronised the slave traders till it was abolished strictly in the year 1838 meaning that Africans were also in support of such act. Truly, Africans were said, to an extent resisted but it was the unsafe masses that were being affected resisted the status of becoming slaves. At times, they carried an attack on the European slave traders to prevent them from continuing in such act but still they waged stronger because of support from some unconcerned Africans who were just interested in achieving their aims by making slaves available to them. By the way, slaving in Africa was essentially a matter of economic choice and if Africans should also seen to have gotten involved in the trading, why then should they be compensated? Whereas they are as guilty as the whitemen who bought the slaves . Therefore I put it to you that Africans are not to be reparated for the loss they suffered during the period of slave trade.
Edeh, Ogochukwu.P
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)