Nailing your colours to the mast...

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 09:15 PM

I resort away from my iPad to do this and towards my laptop.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 08:21 PM

Google Bugger the Bankers (I'm doing this on an ipad, and it's temperamental about putting in links) Not too much poetry about this one, but it's enormous fun, which isn't true of too many hard-hitting songs.

In one sense I suppose you could call it haranguing, if you were a banker. Serve em right.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 07:45 PM

Here's a cracking song with a hard-hitting message done with sheer poetry. A real thought-provoker. That's what I'm on about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mmflP04lBI

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: EBarnacle
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 02:43 PM

Here's Tom Russell doing this well, both in commentary and song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mDHjsNJKUk&list=PLBEC359532E91A320

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 09:19 PM

Sometimes. But too often he was just playing - and he said as much. I doubt if he particularly believed what he says here, which is a very partial truth.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 08:11 PM

"Technique is really personality. That is the reason why the artist cannot teach it, why the pupil cannot learn it, and why the aesthetic critic can understand it. To the great poet, there is only one method of music -- his own. To the great painter, there is only one manner of painting -- that which he himself employs. The aesthetic critic, and the aesthetic critic alone, can appreciate all forms and all modes. It is to him that Art makes her appeal.
Oscar Wilde, ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE THAT HAD SOMETHING BOTH AMUSING AND SENSIBLE TO SAY

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 05:54 PM

A satnav, in other words...

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 04:45 PM

A critic is a man who knows the way but can't drive the car.
                      Kenneth Tynan 1927-80

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 04:26 PM

Way back upstream in this thread, MtheGM told us, quite rightly:

I am somewhat reminded of Dr Johnson on the role of the critic: "You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables."

That reminds me of a comment by some writer back in Victorian times, to the effect that "The art critic's position with regard to artists and their work is like that of the astronomer as to the stars and other heavenly bodies. The astronomer has the privilege of telling the populace where the stars are and what they are doing, but he has no business and no power to tell the stars what to do."

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 02:06 PM

Not particularly enigmatic, just a fleshed out version of ."I can see through you", which is what anyone might say faced with someone they believe to be dishonest.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 01:24 PM

the times are a changing, at the time seemed important, it may have a few weaknesses, but it also had power.
paul macCartney is [imo] technically a very good lyrics writer, use of meter, internal rhymes, use of assonance,but he does not bother much about trying to change the world.,
but shes leaving home has a power and an empathy that a lot of people understand.
dylans best song imo here, may have a couple of technical weaknesses, but it is still powerful





Come you masters of war
You that build the big guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks.

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly.

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain.

You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion'
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud.

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins.

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do.

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.
verse 3 ends with dylan sort of enigmatic rubbish,[ like i see through etc] but despite that it is still a great song that uses a trad tune,
so a great song can still have a few flaws

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 12:51 PM

"Which Side Are You On"? Subtle?
"You either are a union man or a thug for J. H. Blair"
Seems pretty direct to me.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 11:34 AM

True enough, it's a bit clumsy, like a lot of Dylan's songs. But it worked well as a song and as a persuader.

Having a place needn't mean top place. Assuming there's some kind of ranking competition involved.

I'd add the Marseilleise to my list. Once again not all the words bear too close inspection, but so what?

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 10:49 AM

The Times They Are a-Changing, eh? As I recall, there was some unsubtle, blunt-instrument bludgeoning in that song. "Don't criticise what you can't understand..." Silly.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 10:45 AM

Well, I heard Vin sing that song four or five times in the 90s. I couldn't find the lyrics either, nor the lyrics of his other song on the subject (as I understand it), The Secret. Strange.

As for being for or against abortion (and here let's have a "man talking red alert"), I want all women to have the unfettered, total right to abortion. Yet I'm far more anti-abortion than any pope or priest or Vin Garbutt or Mother Teresa that I've ever come across. I hate it and I want there to be hardly any abortions. I think I'll write a song with that as its theme and let people work out how those apparently contradictory notions can be reconciled. People will walk out. Because of my singing, not the song.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 09:27 AM

I've been trying to think of songs which rather than adopt a narrative structure have a directly persuasive approach, asking people to agree. Not that many came to mind, but the ones that did confirm me in my view that there is a place for them.

Which side are you on?
The times they are a-changing
H-bombs thunder
Burning times ("Isis, Astarte...")

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 08:27 AM

singers should not feel under any obligation to have to comment on political subjects , if they want to that in my opinion is fine. i agree with steve that haranguing is not the best method .

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 07:29 AM

I'd question whether Little Innocents actually matches that description Steve. It's unusual in being more directly polemical than most songs Vin has recorded, which generally take the more indirect illustrative approach, whatever the topic involved.

But of course what is even more unusual in the song song is the topic addressed and the viewpoint expressed. I couldn't find the lyrics anywhere online to check them, which in itself says something, I suppose.

While it's perhaps difficult to disentangle the subject of the song from the technique of the song I'd suggest it's worth doing that. While the direct polemical approach is one that should be used with caution, whatever the area of controversy, I think it has a place.

As for the just point that this thread has drifted from the original question raised, that is fair enough. But I don't think anyone has disagreed with the point raised, that people should never be put under pressure to express views about particular issues just because they have become matters of public controversy. So far as that particular issue goes there's a consensus of agreement.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Johnny J
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 06:32 AM

To be fair on Vin Garbutt, he wrote this song many years ago when abortion had only just been legalised a few years previously. He was much younger and less experienced as a songwriter although he felt very strongly and passionate about the issues. However, it's not the type of song which he would write today nor, I believe, one which he includes in his repertoire these days.

At this time, most lay people hadn't had the opportunity to think things through in great detail and tended to fall quite firmly in one camp or the other.
Until I considered things more fully, I was very much against it myself mainly due to the more emotional, and sentimental aspects along with my previous religous upbringing such as it was.

While I am still uncomfortable about the idea, I can also understand why it is the only option for many women and that they, ultimately, should have the right to choose. As to when and where it is appropriate, advisable, or right, when it is really necessary or (Some might say)selfish to do so is a different argument or discussion as opposed to whether or not it should be legal or not. I don't intend to enter into that here.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 05:53 AM

I'd argue that it is a perfectly legitimate thing for a singer to sing such songs.

I agree, but a wily fellow who has an eye on the possible outcomes of his singing will choose the subtle, more artistic approach, not the bludgeoning approach. That's the better way to get more people to consider your viewpoint. Show them a novel angle they might not have thought of.

Directly arguing a point in a polemical way is of course only one way of doing it, and not one which is generally the best. Doing it through a story, as with Vin's Linda, is more likely to work better - though if anything that leaves a singer even more open to the accusation of tugging at heart strings and trying to manipulate the listeners' emotions.

I'm not arguing against tugging at heartstrings in songs. A good song will always do that. I'm suggesting that a song that rattles on about little innocents, etc., is using a well-worn and unsubtle ploy oft resorted to by the kinds of anti-abortionists who help to get rows flaring up on forums by ignoring facts and preachifying instead. It's hackneyed and tiresome and there are better ways.

(And I know that pro-choicers are not always tactically squeaky clean either... ;-) )

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Johnny J
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 05:40 AM

Oops, the above post was from me. I wasn't logged in properly.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 05:25 AM

Doug is correct.

Singers and musicians can hold whatever opinion they want and choose to express it during their performances, in other public areas e.g. the media and press etc. They can also be politically activists or play a supportive role in any of the above.

I've no objection to them "haranguing" an audience or even singing about subjects which I may disagree with or find offensive as long as they are not doing anything illegal.
However, they do so at their own risk in that they may alienate audiences, club organisers who might later give them a booking and so on.
If something really annoys or offends me, I certainly won't be queing up for the next gig albeit, for the most part, I don't mind having my views challenged from time to time.

What my original post was about, and the thread has certainly drifted, is that no performer should necessarily be *expected* to hold strong views on a particular subject or obliged to act on any which he or she may have within the public arena whether at a gig or elsewhere.
My example above was in relation to the Scottish Independence Referendum but I also heard similar sentiments from various quarters at the time of the Iraq War and, in fact, many other major events.

There is diffence, in my opinion between asking questions such as "Why are there no protest singers these days?" or "Where are the protest singers?" as opposed to "What about all these singers? Why aren't they protesting?"

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Mar 13 - 04:18 AM

In fact it diverts from the real topic, which is about the matter of a singer pushing a point of view.

No it isn't. The real topic, expressed in the opening post, is whether there should be

…… an expectation* in many quarters that musicians and singers should declare their political beliefs and stance on all manner of things and use their music and performance opportunities to further these and/or encourage their audiences along the same lines.

The right to hold strong opinions, and to express them if desired, was not in dispute.


DC

*my bold emphasis

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 09:29 PM

I agree that this thread isn't really the place to carry on with a discussion about abortion. In fact it diverts from the real topic, which is about the matter of a singer pushing a point of view. Perhaps Vin Garbutt singing about the terrorist Contra campaign sponsored by the Reagan administration, at the same concerts where he introduced Little Innocents, might be a better focus.

I'd argue that it is a perfectly legitimate thing for a singer to sing such songs. If they challenge the views of the listeners, there is plenty of time for the arguments to follow. It is always a good principle to hear out the position of someone we disagree with rather than to interrupt them and prevent them from explaining. After we have heard them out is the time to put our own views on the table. In the case of a singer on a stage, that would normally be likely to mean carrying on the discussion with others - or of course there is the possibility of doing it in song in some cases.

As for the suggestion that it's "risk free" for a singer in a concert situation, that just doesn't reflect the reality. In some ways Vin Garbutt torpedoed his career when he extended his views on Civil Rights into the context of abortion.

Directly arguing a point in a polemical way is of course only one way of doing it, and not one which is generally the best. Doing it through a story, as with Vin's Linda, is more likely to work better - though if anything that leaves a singer even more open to the accusation of tugging at heart strings and trying to manipulate the listeners' emotions.

But I believe that, whether in the folk club or the concert stage, or in the Mudcat, it is right that the songs should feed into the discussions, and the discussions should lead into the songs, and that it is right that songs are about real things much of the time.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 08:30 PM

This is not a thread about abortion and we shouldn't turn it into one. We've homed in on it because Vin Garbutt is an example of a folkie who uses his gigs to propagate one of his views. His anti-abortion song employs a well-worn tactic oft used by the anti-abortion lobby (namely, the somewhat unsubtle appeal to emotions/sentiment). I utterly defend his right to sing it and for anyone who takes offence at it (not me - I have no right not to be offended so I don't bother to get offended) to walk out. But my contention is that he is wrong-headed, not because I disagree with him but because of the manner of his putting it across. People who disagree with his stance are hardly going to start a big controversy in the middle of the gig, he knows it, and he plays on it. If he made his points down the pub with his mates or on this forum he would get a bloody good argument going and he'd have to defend himself. That's what you get when you put forward a forceful view, but he's found a way of doing it without risk of express dissent. Instead of singing about little innocents he could tell a story in song (which he's good at) to get us thinking about his issue from a novel angle. Woody Guthrie gets us thinking about injustices meted out to people, not by preaching to us about how horrid the injustices are but by giving us a story and implicitly inviting us to see something we might not have thought of for ourselves. That is true artistry in folk song. Vin's stage is not his pulpit. I have no idea whether he allows for views other than his own, but he certainly doesn't allow scope for them to be expressed at the gig. Bit of an abuse, that, no? And remember what I said up the thread. Yes, I strongly disagree with Vin Garbutt about abortion, but I also criticised other singers for adopting a similar approach to issues that I happen to strongly agree with. You can be forceful without hitting people between the eyes who can't argue back at gigs. There is a better, more artistic way. There are even some rap singers who can be more subtle with their message than some of our lot.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 07:33 PM

Is there any way in which your views on this are any less "moralistic", or less impicitly "emotion-sodden", Steve? That doesn't imply anything about their validity. It just means that you hold them strongly.

When it comes to addressing the problem of a high abortion rate I doubt if there actually too much disagreement between your view and the one Vin Garbutt appears to hold, and that I personally hold - there need to be changes in society that would reduce the pressures that push many women into having abortions which they would choose` not to if they really had a free choice.

Ideas about changing the law to stop abortions are a red herring and an irrelevancy - aside from anything else, they wouldn't work. Truly free choice, I would argue, would mean far fewer abortions.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 06:10 PM

We reach rational answers founded on what we believe to be true, and different people will reach different views in regard to all those things.

I'm not talking about reaching answers or views for ourselves. I'm talking about how to address a problem, in this case the problem of a high abortion rate. Whether you're pro-choice or anti-abortion, that's what we have to discuss. And I said discuss. An anti-abortionist singing an emotion-sodden anti-abortion song to an audience at a folk club is not part of any discussion. He's getting a hobby horse off his chest, that's all. As the Catholic church shows with its anti-abortion, pro-ignorance stance in Africa, preachifying moralistically about it, whether from a pulpit in the Church's case or a stage in the folkie's case, is solidly a part of the problem, not the solution. It's a free country, he can sing what he likes, we can walk out if we like, etc. I'll buy all that. But that doesn't make him any less wrong-headed. There are better ways.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Allan Conn
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 05:23 PM

"Perhaps the lack of involvement by musicians and singers in the forthcoming referendum on Scottish Independence is a political statement in itself"

I think though that everyone is taking it for granted that the suggestion that there is a lack of involvement is actually a true statement. I'm not so sure it is. Karine Polwart, Annie Lennox, The Proclaimers, Dick Gaughan, Dougie McLean, Pat Kane, Ricky Ross, Stuart Braithwaite (Mogwai), Eddie Reader, Simon Neil (Biffy Clyro). Just a quick list of some who've said they support the yes campaign - some of them quite involved with it. I think it is true that there are no protest songs as such. Probably because there is nothing to protest at. No-one is being oppressed. Just a democratic choice to make. There are of course those who support the union too. Billy Connolly and james Macmillan spring quickly to mind. However I think that the artistic community (not just musicians) probably tend to be more supportive of independence than the population at large are.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 03:33 PM

100 ory leadfingers

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 01:49 PM

It's people who feel emotional about it; and of course it's people who write songs, and sing songs, and listen to songs. As with other matters involving life and death, such as war and capital punishment, it's never just "a very practical matter that needs practical solutions". We reach rational answers founded on what we believe to be true, and different people will reach different views in regard to all those things.

I agree with MtheGM in distinguishing between two things that can be confused. Attempting to argue for a point of view, or trying to persuade other people to share that point of view, or act in a certain way, is not the same as haranguing people for not being convinced or for not acting.

I think that directly arguing a case is not likely to be the best way of getting that case over, but that is another matter. As for haranguing in almost all situations it is likely to be a waste of energy - as Joe Hill might have put it, "Don't rage, organise".   But I don't think it is right to sneer at someone who might (or might not) have fallen into that trap in face of appalling events which have been largely airbrushed out of history.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 01:33 PM

tough titty, ah Iam now being lambasted by a lithe lettuce, probably a cos.
"But reprimanding one's audience for not adopting a particular stance over a particular issue, and then for not doing anything actively to influence it, belongs in a political gathering convened for the purpose, not in a musical gathering; and is the action of a conceited, self-satisfied, priggish fool; which is precisely what this Frank fellow demonstrated himself to have been on the occasion under consideration. The fact that I was not there to witness it myself, and that he is no longer in a position to dispute as to his motivations, is neither here nor there"
ah MGM, Give it a break, he was a talented song writer who was young and was upset about the support England was giving In the murdering of innocent people, maybe he made a mistake in his approach, but he was no more a conceited priggish fool, than you are a bombastic pompous ass.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 11:45 AM

it's an emotional subject whichever way you see it.

It's actually a very practical issue that needs practical solutions. It's people who get all emotional about it, and that emotional energy merely hoodwinks people from looking for rational answers. An anti-abortionist singing to me in a gig about little innocents is no better than my singing that a foetus is just a ball of cells.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 08:17 AM

Anyhow, singing is one thing, haranguing another. I don't think anyone writing on this thread would object to anyone singing a politically motivated song, however tendentious and/or unacceptable to them were the opinions expressed. They would regard it as part of the democratic give-and-take to be expected in a venue where such performance is an expected part of the proceedings. But reprimanding one's audience for not adopting a particular stance over a particular issue, and then for not doing anything actively to influence it, belongs in a political gathering convened for the purpose, not in a musical gathering; and is the action of a conceited, self-satisfied, priggish fool; which is precisely what this Frank fellow demonstrated himself to have been on the occasion under consideration. The fact that I was not there to witness it myself, and that he is no longer in a position to dispute as to his motivations, is neither here nor there. And if Dick objects to the vocabulary I have selected to express my opinion on the matter, then tough titty!

~M~

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 13 - 07:56 AM

I think there's a very big difference between someone trying to get people to look at an issue in a different way, and haranguing them because they don't. Vin Garbutt singing Little Innocents was doing the former; it's an emotional subject whichever way you see it.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Mar 13 - 12:11 PM

yes, i know that don , thats why i do not do it, and as a matter of fact i agree with steve shaw, woodys approach was right, but i am all for other performers doing what they like, if i dont like it i leave.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 04 Mar 13 - 11:46 AM

Wasn't it Theodore Sturgeon who described someone who had ..."sold his birthright for a pot of message...?

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 13 - 10:22 AM

Well, there are ways of making your political point in a song that don't involve hitting your audience with it between the eyes. Woody Guthrie made many a hard-hitting political point by doing no more than describing, in his own brand of poetry, the lives of downtrodden people, not a hint of preachy bitterness in sight. I've been to the gigs of some pretty eminent "political" folk singers in my time whose views I entirely agree with but who had me gritting me teeth and clenching me buttocks at their clumsy lack of subtlety; of, er, artistry. I'm all for the killing off of capitalism but I don't want to hear that naked message thrown at me in a song. There are better ways. I'm against any kind of restriction at all on abortion and I don't want to hear someone's proselytising against it in a song, especially when it entails tugging at the heartstrings over little innocents, etc. There is a better way of making us think than chucking emotion in our faces. Yes, it's his gig, it's a free country, etc., but songs making debating points sung in front of an audience who can't debate back are not the right way of going about it. That is not legitimate, and of course we can walk out, but I reckon we should get our money back for that. Make the buggers listen to a Woody collection and learn the right way to do it. Here ya go:

Woody Guthrie, "Ludlow Massacre":

And the red neck miners mowed down them troopers
You should have seen those poor boys run

Christy Moore's interpretation of the same words:

And the red neck miners they shot the soldiers
You should have seen them bastards run

You decide who got the message right.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Mar 13 - 09:50 AM

And Dick, do you really think anybody is actually going to read that massive cut 'n paste which contravenes everything that has been said by the thread owner and mods about the length of such?

You've known me for many years and you know that I am one of the most accepting folk club organisers you have ever dealt with, but any such behaviour as described would automatically place the perpetrator on my list of performers under the "DO NOT RE-BOOK!....EVER!" heading!

Don T.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Mar 13 - 09:47 AM

yes we know that mick,
but MGM in a manner rather pompous called him a fool, and Don T sounded off about the importance of careers and described him thus "but it wasn't exactly the action of an intelligent man who intends to pursue a career,"
in my opinion that is what is partly wrong with the uk folk scene today, too many Michael Mainchancers whose only care is furthering their own career, these same people if they were a bit more intelligent should be playing the songs elsewhere on the pop scene where their desire to further their own careers would be more lucrative, and where their folky sounding pop music and attitudes belong, to quote Cromwell
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Mar 13 - 09:35 AM

""If you'd been writing about an incident that you had actually seen, and using that as an illustration of a type of behaviour you wished to criticise, that analogy might have at least some validity, MtheGM.""

So, I was born in 1941 and was four when WW2 ended, and anything that I might want to criticise about the behaviour of Germany is invalid?

Get real!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: mayomick
Date: 04 Mar 13 - 07:40 AM

MGrath of Harlow It was me ,not MGM, who got the dressing down from Jackson C Frank . I didn't want to make a big deal about the incident but it did happen .
GSS,I don't think that any democrat would want to deny performers the right to harangue his audience with dull political speeches from the stage. It's not the right to free speech that is the issue , but whether or not an audience should expect a performer to exercise that right at a concert.
A youtube clip of Jackson C Frank here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgY4GnLGsLQ

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Johnny J
Date: 04 Mar 13 - 04:32 AM

Well, it's certainly taken a strange turn....

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 07:53 PM

Threid deid as far as I'm concerned.
Bye!

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 06:53 PM

If you'd been writing about an incident that you had actually seen, and using that as an illustration of a type of behaviour you wished to criticise, that analogy might have at least some validity, MtheGM.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 05:54 PM

Why? Follow that line of thought and no history about anyone no longer alive can ever be credited.

A nonsensical postulation.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 04:19 PM

"Assumed it occurred described"

That's quite an assumption when it comes to sounding off against a named person. Who is no longer alive.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 03:55 PM

Nigerian Civil War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
        This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (February 2013)
Nigerian Civil War
Biafra independent state map-en.svg
The independent state of the Republic of Biafra in June 1967.
Date         6 July 1967 – 15 January 1970
(2 years, 6 months, 1 week and 2 days)
Location         Nigeria
Result         Nigerian victory
Belligerents
Nigeria
United Arab Republic (air force only)[1]

Supported by:[1][2][dead link]
United Kingdom
Soviet Union
Syria
Sudan
Chad
Niger
People's Republic of China
Algeria
         Biafra
Foreign mercenaries

Supported by:[3][4]
South Africa
Rhodesia
Israel
France
Portugal Portugal
Commanders and leaders
Nigeria Yakubu Gowon
Nigeria Murtala Mohammed
Nigeria Benjamin Adekunle
Nigeria Olusegun Obasanjo
Egypt Gamal Abdel Nasser         Biafra Odumegwu Ojukwu
Biafra Philip Effiong
Albert Okonkwo
Jan Zumbach
Strength
80,000         30,000
Casualties and losses
200,000 Military and civilian casualties         1,000,000 Military and civilian casualties
1–3 million total dead
[show]

    v
    t
    e

Nigerian Civil War

The Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Nigerian-Biafran War, 6 July 1967 – 15 January 1970, was a political conflict caused by the attempted secession of the southeastern provinces of Nigeria as the self-proclaimed Republic of Biafra. The conflict was the result of economic, ethnic, cultural and religious tensions among the various peoples of Nigeria.
Contents

    1 Background
    2 Military coup
    3 Counter-coup
    4 Breakaway
    5 Civil War
    6 Stalemate
    7 War's end
    8 Aftermath and legacy
    9 See also
    10 References
    11 Bibliography
    12 External links

Background
        This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2011)

As with many other African nations, Nigeria was an artificial structure initiated by former colonial powers which had neglected to consider religious, linguistic, and ethnic differences.[5] Nigeria, which gained independence from Britain in 1960, had at that time a population of 60 million people consisting of nearly 300 differing ethnic and cultural groups.

More than fifty years earlier, Great Britain carved an area out of West Africa containing hundreds of different ethnic groups and unified it, calling it Nigeria. Although the area contained many different groups, the three predominant groups were the Igbo, which formed between 60–70% of the population in the southeast, the Hausa-Fulani, which formed about 65% of the peoples in the northern part of the territory; the Yoruba, which formed about 75% of the population in the southwestern part.

The semi-feudal and Islamic Hausa-Fulani in the North were traditionally ruled by a feudal, conservative Islamic hierarchy consisting of Emirs who, in turn, owed their allegiance to a supreme Sultan. This Sultan was regarded as the source of all political power and religious authority.

The Yoruba political system in the southwest, like that of the Hausa-Fulani, also consisted of a series of monarchs being the Oba. The Yoruba monarchs, however, were less autocratic than those in the North, and the political and social system of the Yoruba accordingly allowed for greater upward mobility based on acquired rather than inherited wealth and title.

The Igbo in the southeast, in contrast to the two other groups, lived mostly in autonomous, democratically organised communities, although there were monarchs in many of these ancient cities such as the Kingdom of Nri. In its zenith it controlled most of Igbo land, including influence on the Anioma people, Arochukwu which controlled slavery in Igbo and Onitsha land. Unlike the other two regions, decisions among the Igbo were made by a general assembly in which men could participate.[6]

The differing political systems among these three peoples reflected and produced divergent customs and values. The Hausa-Fulani commoners, having contact with the political system only through their village head who was designated by the Emir or one of his subordinates, did not view political leaders as amenable to influence. Political decisions were to be submitted to. As with other highly authoritarian religious and political system, leadership positions were taken by persons willing to be subservient and loyal to superiors. A chief function of this political system was to maintain Islamic and conservative values, which caused many Hausa-Fulani to view economic and social innovation as subversive or sacrilegious.

In contrast to the Hausa-Fulani, the Igbo often participated directly in the decisions which affected their lives. They had a lively awareness of the political system and regarded it as an instrument for achieving their own personal goals. Status was acquired through the ability to arbitrate disputes that might arise in the village, and through acquiring rather than inheriting wealth. With their emphasis upon social achievement and political participation, the Igbo adapted to and challenged colonial rule in innovative ways.

These tradition-derived differences were perpetuated and, perhaps, even enhanced by the British system of colonial rule in Nigeria. In the North, the British found it convenient to rule indirectly through the Emirs, thus perpetuating rather than changing the indigenous authoritarian political system. As a concomitant of this system, Christian missionaries were excluded from the North, and the area thus remained virtually closed to European cultural imperialism, in contrast to the Igbo, the richest of whom sent many of their sons to British universities. During the ensuing years, the Northern Emirs thus were able to maintain traditional political and religious institutions, while reinforcing their social structure. In this division, the North, at the time of independence in 1960, was by far the most underdeveloped area in Nigeria, with a literacy rate of 2% as compared to 19.2% in the East (literacy in Arabic script, learned in connection with religious education, was higher). The West enjoyed a much higher literacy level, being the first part of the country to have contact with western education in addition to the free primary education program of the pre-independence Western Regional Government.[7]

In the South, the missionaries rapidly introduced Western forms of education. Consequently, the Yoruba were the first group in Nigeria to adopt Western bureaucratic social norms and they provided the first African civil servants, doctors, lawyers, and other technicians and professionals.

In Igbo areas, missionaries were introduced at a later date because of British difficulty in establishing firm control over the highly autonomous Igbo communities.[8] However, the Igbo people took to Western education actively, and they overwhelmingly came to adopt Christianity. Population pressure in the Igbo homeland combined with aspirations for monetary wages drove thousands of Igbo to other parts of Nigeria in search of work. By the 1960s Igbo political culture was more unified and the region relatively prosperous, with tradesmen and literate elites active not just in the traditionally Igbo South, but throughout Nigeria.[9]

The British colonial ideology that divided Nigeria into three regions - North, West and East - exacerbated the already well-developed economic, political, and social differences among Nigeria's different ethnic groups. It has been described as a "deliberate ethnic and religious gerrymander to keep the nation weak, unstable and open to the plunder of its vast oil reserves by UK companies, led by British Petroleum (BP)".[10] The country was divided in such a way that the North had slightly more population than the other two regions combined. On this basis the Northern Region was allocated a majority of the seats in the Federal Legislature established by the colonial authorities. Within each of the three regions the dominant ethnic groups; the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo respectively formed political parties that were largely regional and based on ethnic allegiances: the Northern People's Congress (NPC) in the North; the Action Group in the West (AG); and the National Conference of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) in the East. These parties were not exclusively homogeneous in terms of their ethnic or regional make-up; the disintegration of Nigeria resulted largely from the fact that these parties were primarily based in one region and one tribe. To simplify matters, we will refer to them here as the Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo-based; or Northern, Western and Eastern parties.

During the 1940s and 1950s the Igbo and Yoruba parties were in the forefront of the fight for independence from Britain. They also wanted an independent Nigeria to be organised into several small states so that the conservative North could not dominate the country. Northern leaders, however, fearful that independence would mean political and economic domination by the more Westernized elites in the South, preferred the perpetuation of British rule. As a condition for accepting independence, they demanded that the country continue to be divided into three regions with the North having a clear majority. Igbo and Yoruba leaders, anxious to obtain an independent country at all costs, accepted the Northern demands.
Military coup
        This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2012)

On 15 January 1966, Major Kaduna Nzeogwu and other junior Army officers (mostly majors and captains) attempted a coup d'état. It was generally speculated that the coup had been initiated by the Igbos, and for their own primary benefit, because of the ethnicity of those that were killed. The two major political leaders of the north, The prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and The Premier of the northern region, Sir Ahmadu Bello were executed by Major Nzeogwu. Also murdered was Sir Ahmadu Bello's wife. Meanwhile, the President, Sir Nnamdi Azikiwe, an Igbo, was on an extended vacation in the West Indies. He did not return until days after the coup. However, evidence exists to the contrary. For example, the coup was not only generally applauded in the Northern region, it was most successful there. The fact that only one Igbo officer, Lt Col Arthur Unegbe, was killed can be attributed to the mere fact that the officers in charge of implementing Nzeogwu's plans in the East were incompetent. The coup, also referred to as "The Coup of the Five Majors", has been described in some quarters as Nigeria's only revolutionary coup.[11] This was the first coup in the short life of Nigeria's nascent 2nd democracy. Claims of electoral fraud was one of the reasons given by the coup plotters. This coup resulted in General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, an Igbo and head of the Nigerian Army, taking power as President, becoming the first military head of state in Nigeria.[12]

The coup d'état itself failed, as Ironsi rallied the military against the plotters. But Ironsi did not bring the failed plotters to trial as requested by military law and as advised by most northern and western officers. Ironsi then instituted military rule, by subverting the constitutional succession and alleging that the democratic institutions had failed and that, while he was defending them, they clearly needed revision and clean-up before reversion back to democratic rule. The coup, despite its failure, was wrongly perceived as having benefited mostly the Igbo because most of the known coup plotters were Igbo. However Ironsi, himself an Igbo, was thought to have made numerous attempts to please Northerners. The other event that also fuelled the so-called "Igbo conspiracy" was the killing of Northern leaders, and the killing of the Colonel Shodeinde's pregnant wife by the coup executioners. Despite the overwhelming contradictions of the coup being executed by mostly Northern soldiers (such as John Atom Kpera later military governor of Benue State), the killing of Igbo soldier Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur Unegbe by coup executioners, and Ironsi's termination of an Igbo-led coup, the ease by which Ironsi stopped the coup led to suspicion that the Igbo coup plotters planned all along to pave the way for Ironsi to take the reins of power in Nigeria. It also ignored the fact that the army was largely composed of Northerners at the private level, but Igbo at the officer level, and thus promotions would have to draw upon a large body of Igbo officers. As the officer corps of the army was dominated by the Igbos logic would have had it that mainly Igbo officers could have been killed in the coup if there wasn't an "igbo Conspiracy". On the contrary, the murdered victims of this coup were mainly northerners. The reason for this coup has never been made clear. If it was a revolutionary coup as some have claimed why were the prime minister and premier of the north killed? It has been proven that they both died with less than ten pounds in their respective personal accounts and with one village home each to their names. This was a young country trying to find its way and that way was abruptly scuttled by overzealous army officers numbering above twenty.
Counter-coup
        This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2012)

In the face of provocation from the southern dominated media which repeatedly showed humiliating posters and cartoons of the slain northern politicians, on the night of July 29, 1966, northern soldiers at Abeokuta barracks mutinied, thus precipitating a counter-coup, which may very well have been in the planning stages. The counter-coup led to the installation of Lieutenant-Colonel Yakubu Gowon as Supreme Commander of the Nigerian Armed Forces, despite the intransigence of Mohammed who wanted the role of Supreme Commander for himself. Gowon was chosen as a compromise candidate. He was a Northerner, a Christian, from a minority tribe, and had a good reputation within the army. Ethnic tensions due to the coup and counter-coup increased and more mass pogroms in July and September 1966 took place. See large-scale massacres of Christian Ibo living in the Muslim north.[13]
Breakaway
        This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2012)

The military governor of the Igbo-dominated southeast, Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu, citing the northern massacres and electoral fraud, proclaimed with southern parliament the secession of the south-eastern region from Nigeria as the Republic of Biafra, an independent nation on 30 May 1967. Although the very young nation had a chronic shortage of weapons to go to war, it was determined to defend itself. There was much sympathy in Europe and elsewhere, yet only five countries (Tanzania, Gabon, Côte d'Ivoire, Zambia and Haiti) officially recognised the new republic.

Several peace accords especially the one held at Aburi, Ghana (the Aburi Accord) collapsed and the shooting war soon followed. Ojukwu managed at Aburi to get agreement to a confederation for Nigeria, rather than a federation. He was warned by his advisers that this reflected a failure of Gowon to understand the difference and, that being the case, predicted that it would be reneged upon. When this happened, Ojukwu regarded it as both a failure by Gowon to keep to the spirit of the Aburi agreement, and lack of integrity on the side of the Nigerian Military Government in the negotiations toward a united Nigeria. Gowon's advisers, to the contrary, felt that he had enacted as much as was politically feasible in fulfilment of the spirit of Aburi.[14] The Eastern region was very ill equipped for war, outmanned and outgunned by the Nigerians. Their advantages included fighting in their homeland, support of most Easterners, determination, and use of limited resources. The UK and the Soviet Union supported (especially militarily) the Nigerian government while Canada, Israel, and France helped the Biafrans. The United States seemed to be neutral but helped the Biafrans through the Red Cross.
Civil War

The Nigerian government launched a "police action" to retake the secessionist territory. The war began on 6 July 1967 when Nigerian Federal troops advanced in two columns into Biafra. The Nigerian army offensive was through the north of Biafra led by Colonel Shuwa and the local military units were formed as the 1st Infantry Division. The division was led mostly by northern officers. After facing unexpectedly fierce resistance and high casualties, the right-hand Nigerian column advanced on the town of Nsukka which fell on 14 July, while the left-hand column made for Garkem, which was captured on 12 July. At this stage of the war, the other regions of Nigeria (the West and Mid-West) still considered the war as a confrontation between the north (mainly Hausas) against the east (mainly Igbos)[citation needed]. But the Biafrans responded with an offensive of their own when, on 9 August, the Biafran forces moved west into the Mid-Western Nigerian region across the Niger river, passing through Benin City, until they were stopped at Ore (in present day Ondo State) just over the state boundary on 21 August, just 130 miles east of the Nigerian capital of Lagos. The Biafran attack was led by Lt. Col. Banjo, a Yoruba, with the Biafran rank of brigadier. The attack met little resistance and the Mid-West was easily taken over. This was due to the pre-secession arrangement that all soldiers should return to their regions to stop the spate of killings, in which Igbo soldiers had been major victims.[7][15] The Nigerian soldiers that were supposed to defend the Mid-West state were mostly Mid-West Igbo and while some were in touch with their eastern counterparts, others resisted. General Gowon responded by asking Colonel Murtala Mohammed (who later became head of state in 1975) to form another division (the 2nd Infantry Division) to expel the Biafrans from the Mid-West, as well as defend the West side and attack Biafra from the West as well. As Nigerian forces retook the Mid-West, the Biafran military administrator declared the Republic of Benin on 19 September, though it ceased to exist the next day.
Flag of the Republic of Benin.

Although Benin City was retaken by the Nigerians on 22 September, the Biafrans succeeded in their primary objective by tying down as many Nigerian Federal troops as much as they could. Gen. Gowon also launched an offensive into Biafra south from the Niger Delta to the riverine area using the bulk of the Lagos Garrison command under Colonel Benjamin Adekunle (called the Black Scorpion) to form the 3rd Infantry Division (which was later renamed as the 3rd Marine Commando). As the war continued, the Nigerian Army recruited amongst a wider area, including the Yoruba, Itshekiri, Urhobo, Edo, Ijaw, and etc. Four battalions of the Nigerian 2nd Infantry Division were needed to drive the Biafrans back and eliminate their territorial gains made during the offensive. The Nigerians were repulsed three times as they attempted to cross the River Niger during October, resulting in the loss of thousands of troops, dozens of tanks and equipment. The first attempt by the 2nd Infantry Division on 12 October to cross the Niger from the town of Asaba to the Biafran city of Onitsha cost the Nigerian Federal Army over 5,000 soldiers killed, wounded, captured or missing.
Stalemate
Biafran soldiers defending Aba during Operation OAU

From 1968 onward, the war fell into a form of stalemate, with Nigerian forces unable to make significant advances into the remaining areas of Biafran control due to stiff resistance and major defeats in Abagana, Arochukwu, Oguta, Umuahia (Operation OAU), Onne, Ikot Ekpene, and etc.[16] But another Nigerian offensive from April to June 1968 began to close the ring around the Biafrans with further advances on the two northern fronts and the capture of Port Harcourt on 19 May 1968. The blockade of the surrounded Biafrans led to a humanitarian disaster when it emerged that there was widespread civilian hunger and starvation in the besieged Igbo areas. The Biafran government claimed that Nigeria was using hunger and genocide to win the war, and sought aid from the outside world. A Nigerian commission, including British doctors from the Liverpool University School of Tropical Medicine, visited Biafra after the war[17] and concluded that the evidence of deliberate starvation was overplayed, caused by confusion between the symptoms of starvation and various tropical illnesses. They did not doubt that starvation had occurred, but were unsurprisingly not clear of the extent to which it was a result of the Nigerian blockade or the restriction of food to the civilians by the Biafran government[14]
A child suffering the effects of severe hunger and malnutrition as a result of the blockade. Pictures of the famine caused by Nigerian blockade garnered sympathy for the Biafrans worldwide.

Many volunteer bodies organised the Biafran airlift which provided blockade-breaking relief flights into Biafra, carrying food, medicines, and sometimes (according to some claims) weapons.[18] More common was the claim that the arms-carrying aircraft would closely shadow aid aircraft, making it more difficult to distinguish between aid aircraft and military supply aircraft.[18] It has been argued that by prolonging the war the Biafran relief effort (characterised by Canadian development consultant Ian Smillie as "an act of unfortunate and profound folly"), contributed to the deaths of as many as 180,000 civilians.[19]

In response to the Nigerian government using foreigners to lead some advances, the Biafran government also began hiring foreign mercenaries to extend the war.[citation needed] Only German born Rolf Steiner a Lt. Col. with the 4th Commandos, and Major Taffy Williams, a Welshman would remain for the duration.[20] Nigeria also used 'mercenaries', in the form of Egyptian pilots for their air force MiG 17 fighters and Il 28 bombers. The Egyptian conscripts frequently attacked civilian rather than military targets, bombing numerous Red Cross shelters.[18]

Bernard Kouchner was one of a number of French doctors who volunteered with the French Red Cross to work in hospitals and feeding centres in besieged Biafra. The Red Cross required volunteers to sign an agreement, which was seen by some (like Kouchner and his supporters) as being similar to a gag order, that was designed to maintain the organisation's neutrality, whatever the circumstances. Kouchner and the other French doctors signed this agreement.

After entering the country, the volunteers, in addition to Biafran health workers and hospitals, were subjected to attacks by the Nigerian army, and witnessed civilians being murdered and starved by the blockading forces. Kouchner also witnessed these events, particularly the huge number of starving children, and when he returned to France, he publicly criticised the Nigerian government and the Red Cross for their seemingly complicit behaviour. With the help of other French doctors, Kouchner put Biafra in the media spotlight and called for an international response to the situation. These doctors, led by Kouchner, concluded that a new aid organisation was needed that would ignore political/religious boundaries and prioritise the welfare of victims. They created Médecins Sans Frontières in 1971 (Doctors Without Borders).[21]

In September 1968, the federal army planned what Gowon described as the "final offensive." Initially the final offensive was neutralised by Biafran troops by the end of the year after several Nigerian troops were routed in Biafran ambushes. In the latter stages, a Southern FMG offensive managed to break through. However in 1969, the Biafrans launched several offensives against the Nigerians in their attempts to keep the Nigerians off-balance starting in March when the 14th Division of the Biafran army recaptured Owerri and moved towards Port Harcourt, but were halted just north of the city. In May 1969, Biafran commandos recaptured oil wells in Kwale. In July 1969, Biafran forces launched a major land offensive supported by foreign mercenary pilots continuing to fly in food, medical supplies and weapons. Most notable of the mercenaries was Swedish Count Carl Gustav von Rosen who led air attacks with five Malmö MFI-9 MiniCOIN small piston-engined aircraft, armed with rocket pods and machine guns. His BAF (Biafran Air Force) consisted of three Swedes: von Rosen, Gunnar Haglund and Martin Lang. The other two pilots were Biafrans: Willy Murray-Bruce and Augustus Opke. From 22 May to 8 July 1969 von Rosen's small force attacked Nigerian military airfields in Port Harcourt, Enugu, Benin City and Ughelli, destroying or damaging a number of Nigerian Air Force jets used to attack relief flights, including a few Mig-17's and three out of Nigeria's six Ilyushin Il-28 bombers that were used to bomb Biafran villages and farms on a daily basis. Although the Biafran offensives of 1969 were a tactical success, the Nigerians soon recovered. The Biafran air attacks did disrupt the combat operations of the Nigerian Air Force, but only for a few months.

One of the interesting characters assisting Count Carl Gustav von Rosen was Lynn Garrison, an ex-RCAF fighter pilot. He introduced the Count to a Canadian method of dropping bagged supplies to remote areas in Canada without losing the contents. He showed how one sack of food could be placed inside a larger sack before the supply drop. When the package hit the ground the inner sack would rupture while the outer one kept the contents intact. With this method many tons of food were dropped to many Biafrans who would otherwise have died of starvation.
War's end
Nigerians celebrating the war's end in Lagos

With increased British support, the Nigerian federal forces launched their final offensive against the Biafrans once again on 23 December 1969 with a major thrust by the 3rd Marine Commando Division the division was commanded by Col. Obasanjo (who later became president twice) which succeeded in splitting the Biafran enclave into two by the end of the year. The final Nigerian offensive, named "Operation Tail-Wind", was launched on 7 January 1970 with the 3rd Marine Commando Division attacking, and supported by the 1st Infantry division to the north and the 2nd Infantry division to the south. The Biafran town of Owerri fell on 9 January, and Uli fell on 11 January. Only a few days earlier, Ojukwu fled into exile by flying by plane to the republic of Côte d'Ivoire, leaving his deputy Philip Effiong to handle the details of the surrender to General Yakubu Gowon of the federal army on 13 January 1970. The war finally ended a few days later with the Nigerian forces advancing in the remaining Biafran held territories with little opposition.

After the war Gowon said, "The tragic chapter of violence is just ended. We are at the dawn of national reconciliation. Once again we have an opportunity to build a new nation. My dear compatriots, we must pay homage to the fallen, to the heroes who have made the supreme sacrifice that we may be able to build a nation, great in justice, fair trade, and industry."[22]
Aftermath and legacy

The war cost the Igbos a great deal in terms of lives, money and infrastructure. It has been estimated that up to three million people may have died due to the conflict, most from hunger and disease.[23] Reconstruction, helped by the oil money, was swift; however, the old ethnic and religious tensions remained a constant feature of Nigerian politics. Accusations were made of Nigerian government officials diverting resources meant for reconstruction in the former Biafran areas to their ethnic areas. Military government continued in power in Nigeria for many years, and people in the oil-producing areas claimed they were being denied a fair share of oil revenues.[24] Laws were passed mandating that political parties could not be ethnically or tribally based; however, it has been hard to make this work in practice.

Igbos who ran for their lives during the pogroms and war returned to find their positions had been taken over; and when the war was over the government did not feel any need to re-instate them, preferring to regard them as having resigned. This reasoning was also extended to Igbo owned properties and houses. People from other regions were quick to take over any house owned by an Igbo, especially in the Port Harcourt area. The Nigerian Government justified this by terming such properties abandoned. This, however, has led to a feeling of an injustice as the Nigerian government policies were seen as further economically disabling the Igbos even long after the war. Further feelings of injustice were caused by Nigeria, changing its currency so that Biafran supplies of pre-war Nigerian currency were no longer honoured, at the end of the war, only N£20 was given to any easterner despite what ever amount of money he or she had in the bank. This was applied irrespective of their banking in pre-war Nigerian currency or Biafran currency. This was seen as a deliberate policy to hold back the Igbo middle class, leaving them with little wealth to expand their business interests.[25]

On Monday 29 May 2000, The Guardian (Nigeria) reported that President Olusegun Obasanjo commuted to retirement the dismissal of all military persons who fought for the breakaway state of Biafra during the Nigerian civil war. In a national broadcast, he said that the decision was based on the principle that "justice must at all times be tempered with mercy.

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 03:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY4Lr0sFQ4s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgY4GnLGsLQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgY4GnLGsLQ two clips of Franck and his music, this is the best way to remember him, through his music. please lets have no more of this pompous clap trap about something that allegedly happened once,50 years ago, this thread at times resembles the mad hatters tea party

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 02:38 PM

I didn't 'describe' it in any way shape manner or form, McG. As you say, I wasn't there so how on earth can I be held to have described it in any sense whatsoever! I was simply commenting on how I viewed its propriety, assuming it to have occurred as described by whoever it was who did describe it.

Ho hum.

Think I'll go back to bed

☹ ☹ ☹ ☹ ☹ ☹ ☹ ☹

Subject: RE: Nailing your colours to the mast...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 02:25 PM

The incident with Franck that MtheGM goes on about may have happened the way he describes it, or it may not. He wasn't there, and at this length of time even if he had been a subjective report at this remove would be pretty irrelevant.

I do remember that the general apathy about this genocide was pretty upsetting, including some pretty repulsive 'jokes' about starving babies. An angry response to that kind of thing would have been very understandable.

This thread seems to have shifted around a bit. Jhnny J's original point was about how silly it is if people expect that a singer should have a position on any and every issue that comes up in the media. Pretty self evidently that kind of expectation is silly.

But that seems to have shifted into an argument about whether they. Should feel entitled to express strong opinions where they do have them, and how best that should be done. Along with the related question whether they should feel obliged to come out and own up to whatever views they might hold, whether they want to or not.

Basically it comes down to freedom of speech - which includes freedom of silence.