Mom, where did those angry people pointing guns at us come from?

  The U.N attack in Nigeria, qualified as ‘an attack on the world”  is only the last lassie to join the dance in a row of unpopular popular acts world wide. Some of forms of  insurrections get a green light and are supported by the public opinion, some aren’t. The nasty kids either don’t get proportional news coverage  ( see protests in Israel) or are labeled as Islamic terrorists (when possible) and there for excluded from a political point of view.

Although the talk back in the civilized world’ revolved around responsible investment and partnership with the African countries for a sustainable development and mutual benefits, that discourse seems just a calming pep talk. Well, since the general public is comfortably dreaming of Eco-fuels and fair businesses and eating nationalist discourse about how their forefathers worked hard to build the nation’s wealth, the following facts aren’t going to disturb them.


Oakland Institute Report : Understanding Land Investment Deals in Africa
detailed information about the abuses made by rogue governments and corporations in African countries.

Farmers receive little or no compensation for their land, that is used by large corporations for agriculture (industrial farming). Both governments and corporations legitimize their actions as local development ( job creation and generating wealth in the area). In fact, land is taken away and the locals are worst off,  as they work at least as much but end up having even smaller income. Some international media sources emphasized influences from China, India and Arabia, but mostly remained silent about U.S, U.K and Germany (+ others).

With the Oakland Institute report in hand, the recent attack on the U.N center in Nigeria could gain a somewhat different interpretation. Groups labeled as extremist might have reasons for extreme reactions other than religion. Even if religion would be the main incentive, those doing the labeling might not be as impartial as it seems.

And now for something completely different:
More stats here

There is a lot of room for subjectivity in decision making. The way leaders are usually elected is based on common affinities. Just a crazy thought –a majority of people could consider religion a strong point on a candidate’s résumé.  If so, is secularization really possible? Stats make the game as follows: “People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet’s Teachings and Jihad” against “People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophets Teachings and War on terror”. The latter having better weapons and more time.

*** here by recommend the reading of the article as a thinking exercise Readers are encouraged to form their own opinions.
Mali Farmers – New Yorker article – 2010

Abuja attack: Car bomb hits Nigeria UN building