Syndicate

Why the Military Failed in Liberia Print E-mail
Written by Charles L. Massaquoi   
Saturday, 14 April 2007
Leaders of the 1980 military coup. From left to right are:Sergeant Nicholas Podier, Sergeant Thomas Quiwonkpa, Master Sergeant Samuel Doe & Sergeant Thomas Weh Syen. Coups and sudden military takeover in Africa were common occurrences in the late 70s and early 80s. When I was a student in Senior High School, we often heard about military coups on the continent. The media immediately captured and published such events. On television and radio, and in the newspapers journalists and political analysts described in details how certain governments had been destabilize as a result.

For instance correspondents from the BBC or the Voice of America, the common and easily accessible media for the poor in Africa, and arguably the most reliable at the time, told stories of how the army ruled in Ghana, Nigeria, and Uganda. I never imagined the same would happen in Liberia. However, I was short sighted and wrong because Liberia could not escape from the cruelty and insurgency of the military. On April 12, 1980, the military overthrew the Government of Liberia. Seventeen young enlisted men of the Armed Forces of Liberia stormed the Presidential Mansion, and assassinated the Chairman of the Organization of African Unity and President of Liberia, William Richard Tolbert. Over a dozen officials of Tolbert’s region, mostly of Americo-Liberian descent, commonly referred to in Liberia as the “congo”, were also publicly executed.  The Liberian experience was described as one of the bloodiest in Africa.

The military seized power thereby launching Liberia’s first “revolution”. Americo-Liberian political domination of over a century ended with the formation of the People’s Redemption Council (PRC) headed by Master Sergeant Samuel K. Doe. The young revolutionaries promised that once again the Liberian people would be treated humanely and would be given equal opportunity to realize their full potentials. This was overwhelmingly welcomed by many Liberians because in the first place Doe was an indigenous Liberian just like many native Liberians.  In fact he was not a  “congo”, and that was enough.  Secondly Liberians were convinced that they were finally in control of their own destiny and their country without outside influence.  They believed that many of the Americo-Liberians at the time had some link or relationship with the United States one way or the other.  So all was well when Doe and his men seized power. For them the time for the common and indigenous Liberian had finally arrived.

Sergeant Doe became the Head of State; Sergeant Thomas Weh-Syen, the Vice Head of State; and Sergeant Thomas Quiwonkpa, "Strongman of the Revolution", was announced the Commanding General of the Armed Forces of Liberia. The PRC was thus formed to “redeem the Liberian People”.  What better opportunity can one ask for?  However, this joy and relief were short-lived.

Instead of changing the old system, they succeeded in creating another system, which many deemed was far worse than their predecessors in terms of inequality, human rights violation, poor economy, deplorable education and health care system, to name a few. The military completely worsened the political and economic conditions in Liberia. What was known as military coup d’etat became a coup de gráce.

The military government condemned the old regime and accused their predecessors, but from time to time we saw how lavishly the new regime lived, soldiers drove in luxurious cars with tinted glasses, and occupied split level mansions while social services standards in the country including health, education and employment plummeted. The flamboyant life styles of the military were observed by all Liberians because for the soldiers, their lifestyles were a reward and a result of their “hard work”.  After all taking power away from the Americo-Liberians was worthy of celebration.  Hence there was no point hiding their reward and accomplishments.  For them it was time to demonstrate a form of superiority and power as they publicly displayed what they have “earned”.
Doe's government increasingly adopted an ethnic outlook, as members of his Krahn ethnic group soon dominated political and military life in Liberia. This caused a heightened level of ethnic tension leading to frequent hostilities between the politically and militarily dominant Krahns and other ethnic groups in the country. The Doe regime was an extraordinary brutal one that not only disenfranchised many Liberians, but it also effectively erased the boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate political action.
Doe accused the Americo- Liberians of corruption.  He may be right on that because the ethnic Americo-Liberians also publicly displayed their enormous resources of wealth and connections garnered during the many years they ruled.  However Doe’s Administration was said to be one of the most corrupt and profligate in Liberian history. Instead of building an honest and capable civil servant, many government workers were hired based on their linkage or relationship to top government officials rather than based on their academic qualifications.  Further more, Government workers were forced to contribute 25% of their salaries towards the celebration of Doe’s birthday—officially declared a public holiday each year— when he was in power.  In addition, all civil servants were also forced to pay into the coffers of the ruling party. He championed the cause of mainly the Krahns, his ethnic group, rather than act as a figure-head for all.

Doe became insensitive to the plight of the poor by allowing foreign insatiable interests and, like many other developing countries, allowing the International Monetary Fund (IMF) dictate the nation’s economic course. The plight of the common Liberian was unbearable.  The country’s human rights record became stained and yet unquestionable for fear of being labeled or branded as an enemy. Doe’s National Democratic Party of Liberia had greater access to the media compared to other parties during the period of elections, thereby giving him the upper hand in the campaign process.

Tubman’s Era
Dr. William V. S. Tubman, the 18th President of Liberia ruled for 27 years. His Vice President, William R. Tolbert ruled Liberia for 19 years. Their party, the True Whig Party (TWP), reemerged in Liberian politics in 1877 as the dominant party with its candidate Anthony William Gardiner as the winner of the elections.  Hence forth, the TWP became the only political party in Liberia to have ruled the country for 133 uninterrupted years.

That was definitely a grave mistake because what it meant was that the country became a one-party state though there was no ban on multi party politics. But the TWP, like any political party system, had its shortcomings. Its strength lied not on serving the people of Liberia but on building a network of loyal families entrenched in the political root of the country so that the party stood for over a century without a major opposition.  Consequently until April 12, 1980 Liberia was considered a primary country among the politically stable countries in Africa. Regrettably Liberia could not escape the wrath of inequality, oppression and revolution.  The Liberia we all knew before became that of the past.

Many African countries like Liberia are grappling with the aftermath of years and centuries of social, economic and political injustice. In Africa today Ghana is one of the most stable and economically viable countries.  A rank once reserved for Liberia.

Tubman’s legacy of “Open Door Policy” geared towards attracting foreign capital into the country, and his policy of unifying indigenous Liberians and Americo-Liberians were perhaps well-intended policies to cover up the underground inner workings of his network of leaders.  Unfortunately establishing power made up of a small number of prominent families who led factions and formed alliances within the party existed far before Doe’s arrival in Liberian politics.

Hence it is no wonder that native Liberians were full of joy when the military overthrew the civilian President William R. Tolbert on April 12, 1980. The same people, however, were later to be victimized by General Samuel K. Doe. He ruled Liberia for ten years, a period some journalists and political analysts have described as a reign of terror.  During a discussion with me of the Liberian situation, a Liberian Educator Mr. James S. Bartee once said the late Head of State Samuel K. Doe will be remembered not for his bravery for taking power away from Americo-Liberians, but as the man who introduced “DOEMOCRACY” and not “DEMOCRACY”.  His description illustrates the degree at which Doe was obsessed with power.  It describes how Doe, like his predecessors, established a network of tribal loyalists in his government.

Out of Liberia’s 21 past presidents, Samuel K. Doe made history on January 6, 1986 to have become the first indigenous person to be inaugurated as elected president.

Following the social, economic and political problems that the country encounter even long after the rule of the string of Americo-Liberians, some argued that Doe exemplified the incapability of native Liberians to govern themselves.

That not withstanding it is worth noting that Doe indeed registered some marks of achievement during his rule as president. For instance it is in Doe’s era that a truly autonomous constitution was drafted.  The creation of four more counties and the introduction of a multi-party system of government all occurred during his rule.  However, it is believed that his misdeeds outweigh his achievements. He completely lost a unique opportunity to radically change the country and head it in the right direction where Liberians would take charge of their own destiny without any fear of intimidation and discrimination. Instead he failed to unite all Liberians, and intensified the practice of tribalism thereby heightening tribal sentiment coupled with social and economic turmoil.  It is these characteristics that led to the crumbling of military rule and fueled the over 10 years of civil crisis in Liberia.

Politically Doe represented a leader hungry for power. As the Nigerian journalist Ray Ekpu put it, “power like liquor, has a strong aroma and like liquor when taken in large quantities, it is capable of intoxicating the consumer”. Doe was power intoxicated and saw enemies where there were none and saw no friends where there were many. It was as if the gods were angry and intended to destroy him.  He was power intoxicated, mad with the power that he had ruthlessly acquired and ruthlessly maintained, until the very intoxication led to his fall.

The United States of America (USA) cannot go without blame for the political nightmare in Liberia. The US supported the ruthless dictator for 10 years. The US Department of State endorsed the disputed results of the 1985 elections. Between the 1980’s and 1990’s, US aid to Liberia stood at 500 million dollars. But this is another topic, which I hope to revisit sometime soon.


Charles L. Massaquoi is a Liberian residing in Malmo City, Sweden.




Comments (163)
RSS comments
1. 15-04-2007 17:16
 
That not withstanding it is worth noting that Doe indeed registered some marks of achievement during his rule as president. For instance it is in Doe’s era that a truly autonomous constitution was drafted. The creation of four more counties and the introduction of a multi-party system of government all occurred during his rule. However, Charles you said it was Doe's era constitution was drafted yes because in every military rule the constitution is always suspended and people are ruled by decrees, therefore to go back to normal rule there has to be a new constitution, secondly you said muti party was created. That is wrong. I think the question is how long these so called political parties will stay around? Are they only for the time of presidential elections? Thirdly, creating new counties under the u.s. hand out? introducing toliet paper curency to pay people half a cent for a month just to add four more counties? it was just bad news for Liberia all Liberians wanted a change of accountability and transpiracy but not through that medium it was like going from worse to ridiculous.
 
Gar-Gar
2. 15-04-2007 13:30
 
An excellent and concise recount of Liberia's recent political history. 
 
Certainly cast the current nascent administration as one of the most sober Liberia has had thus far. 
 
Well done.
 
K. Koiquoe Wilson
3. 16-04-2007 11:47
 
Brain storm
Charles, let's get away from this, "us .vs.Them" theory because there isn't us and them but Liberians seeking some kind of equal distribution of goods and wealth, not as Mathews, and others using us .vs.Them to rally support from Market boys.secondly you mentioned about why America supported the "PRC" if you begin to look at this issue from that point you will be getting closer to the truth. May God bless Liberia.
 
Gar-Gar
4. 16-04-2007 17:38
 
Count in order.
Is best to count our Liberians issues in the order they occured. 
1.The seperate treatment of ndigenous Liberians, over decades Lead to the PRC. 
2. The inexperiences of the PRC, and the underminding activeties from some of those that were called to served, Lead to the NPFL. 
3. The NPFL CHEIF (now in jail) administration was one of the worse Government in Liberia history. He was driven out, to Jail. 
4. Liberian (again) just elected another NPFL President. Who's primary concern is to travell the world for the name, and the money.  
I am not supporting any of the above. No one person, or passed Government is to be blamed for where we are today as a nation. 
If we are not able to live togerther as Liberians, it may lead to another situation. 
Or another country may just take liberia, away from us. This is logic. Injustics give brith to PRC. PRC give brith to NPFL. This is where we are currently. Any form of injustice, finger pointing, might just give brith to something that could cause another major setback for us all....Nevertheless, every one is free to say, or do whatever with some limits.
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
5. 16-04-2007 18:56
 
Only The Facts, Sir
Thomas Doe, 
You seem to be rationalizing the utter fiasco that was the Doe administration. This is evident in your statement that the inexperience of the PRC and the subversive actions of their employees (clansmen, for the most part) were responsible for the carnage and reign of fear that the Doe regime visited upon the Liberian people. Are we to believe that this dark period in Liberia’s history had nothing to do with the actual perpetrators? I am sure that not even you believe this bizarre assertion. 
 
We have come to respect your opinions, Mr. Doe, but this one is inconsistent and rather bizarre in the face of historical facts.
 
K. Koiquoe Wilson
6. 16-04-2007 19:29
 
Only The Facts, Sir
It appears that Mr Doe is giving an order in which certain events happened in Liberian history. I do not understand him to be rationalizing the Doe administration.In that respect when you want to address what you perceive as a bizarre assertion, you should do so subjectively and not use "WE" 
On the subject of the PRC, they were inexperienced, they had no idea on what they were getting into the morning of April 12, 1980.If they knew the killings would have been less, and many lives would not have been lost.
 
ADOLPH
7. 16-04-2007 20:39
 
Only The Facts, Sir
Adolph, 
From all indications, the vast majority of Liberians find this dark period of Doe’s rule in our country’s history one of utter barbarism never before seen in what was once the most peaceful sanctuary in all of Africa. It is on this basis that I employ the word “we” in communicating the distortion of Mr. Thomas Doe’s comment. If you, on the other hand, are proud of the Doe’s regime, it is your prerogative to dissent. This forum is amenable to your offering your adverse viewpoint. 
 
I wonder if you might supply concrete arguments to support your (I will reserve the word bizarre) assertion that the wanton and barbaric killing by Doe and his clique was merely due to inexperience. I wonder how the countless victims of their grotesque brutality might construe your (I will reserve the word bizarre) rationalization that their deaths was due to the fact that the PRC did not know what they were doing. Are “we” to give credence to your contrived pretext that anyone who is inexperience in any endeavor has free reign to resort to such ugly and monstrous violence? 
 
Please help me understand how you arrived at such imperceptible conclusion, sir.
 
K. Koiquoe Wilson
8. 16-04-2007 21:11
 
Only The Facts, Sir
I am not a supporter of Doe's administration. 
If you suggested other factors that may have been responsible for the wanton and barbaric killings by the Doe administration and I disputed them, then I could understand your rant. 
The PRC was inexperienced, can you deny that? Mr Thomas Doe was merely giving a timeline synopsis, there was no attempt to rationalize the killings of the Doe administration.As much as I believe change was justified, I would never attempt to rationalize mass murder. 
Now what do you believe were the reasons for wanton and barbaric killings by the Doe administration other then intoxication of power and greed?
 
ADOLPH
9. 16-04-2007 22:45
 
Only The Facts, Sir
My Friend Adolph, 
 
Inexperience and ignorance are not one and the same. One is inexperience if he has some minimal knowledge but no practical experience for the job at hand. One is ignorant when one has neither the minimal requisite knowledge nor an iota of practical experience. I will leave you to decide which category describes your PRC buddies. 
 
Below is a segment of Thomas Doe’s comment: 
2. The inexperiences of the PRC, and the underminding activeties from some of those that were called to served, Lead to the NPFL.  
 
Clearly, Mr. Thomas Doe is blaming the disaster that was the Doe’s regime and its eventual demise on the PRC’s inexperience and on the activities of their fellow ignoramuses with whom they surrounded themselves. Mr. Thomas Doe makes no reference to the rampant barbarism and wanton looting of the country’s resources, amongst other hideous crimes against the Liberian people, by this feckless dictatorship. Are you and he not rationalizing the true reason for the ouster of this poor excuse for a government?
 
K. Koiquoe Wilson
10. 16-04-2007 23:46
 
Only The Facts, Sir
You are clearly being provocative which is unacceptable. Why would you call the PRC my buddies? You admonish D Smith for the same when he did that to Nat and you now continue with the same immature behaviour. 
2 That statement does not suggest in any way that Mr Doe is rationalizing the PRC wanton and brutal killings. Again he was giving a timeline on how different political structures came to be in Liberia.While it would be more appropiate for Mr Doe to defend himself, I did not comprehend his statement to be a support of the PRC's regime. 
History shows that Doe's administration was one of corruption and brutality. However when the coup happened in 1980 change was inevitable.The rice riot of 1979 had set into motion the country's unease with its political system at the time. Like I said I will never defend the killings of any group of people but the change occured.If the PRC had been experienced meaning they had ran a government before and knew the pressures it had, what it took to maintain stability, maybe we would have gone down a different path, and as Thomas Doe stated that would not have led to the NPFL.Remeber Taylor came to rescue us from Doe as Doe had come to rescue us from Tolbert.
 
ADOLPH
11. 17-04-2007 07:46
 
Only The Facts, Sir
"Doe came to rescue us from Tolbert" :x  
 
We needed to be rescued from Tolbert?!?!  
 
The end result of entire coup fiasco just proved something that some of you are still unwilling to accept...it was a completely unjustifiable act!  
 
Yesterday 30 some people were killed on Virginia Tech's campus. They were killed because one person felt like he was being treated unfairly. Therefore, even though it was wrong...it was necessary. 
 
What was your first reaction to my position (last sentence)? I would like to believe you were thinking I was out of my mind!? Read over it again. 
 
This is the same logic I see being used time and time again when people try to justify the coup and the Doe administration! FLAWED!
 
V.R.
12. 17-04-2007 08:04
 
Only The Facts, Sir
So K KOIQUOE WILSON is VR, interesting?
 
ADOLPH
13. 17-04-2007 08:34
 
Flawed Logic in play!!
"So K KOIQUOE WILSON is VR, interesting?" :grin  
 
So you are trying to say that Me and Wilson are the same person simply because my post came directly after yours?!?! 
 
You can't be serious my man. If you are....it explains A WHOLE LOT my brother!
 
V.R.
14. 17-04-2007 10:11
 
Flawed Logic in play!!
Was the American revolution an  
unjustifiable act VR? What about the French revolution? 
Your problem is you do not believe that Liberia had any oppressive rule so any counterarguments would be flawed to you.Gbaccus Matthews and others were scheduled to be executed,the rice riots coupled with the progressive movement had brought a new enlightment to the people.The coup was a revolution, justifiable would depend on which end of the spectrum you were.
 
ADOLPH
15. 17-04-2007 10:20
 
FLAWED LOGIC IN PLAY?
LOL,no the reason I wrote that was because I knew exactly that you would implied that.It was sarcasm on my part to pose that question. 
I do not believe you are K Koiquoe Wilson simply because I do not know who you are as you do not know who I am.At least Mr Wilson identifies himself in a way that it would be easy to find out who he is.Without any evidence it would be difficult for me to prove you were one and the same.Plus it would not even concern me if you were.
 
ADOLPH
16. 17-04-2007 11:31
 
Only The Facts, Sir
Often times, we encounter closet defenders of the PRC offering us distorted intellectual arguments for why Liberia should revere the supposed accomplishments of their venerable PRC. My reference to your “PRC buddies” is because you seem to fit this closet mode. You may see it as immature, but there are many of your cohorts out there who are trying to rewrite Liberian history. The PRC will remain one of the greatest abominations in Liberia’s history despite your perverse efforts to the contrary. 
 
You may interpret Thomas Doe’s statement literally as referring to chronological order of political structures. But implicit in Mr. Doe’s statement is his rationalization for the turnover from the PRC to the NPFL, namely their inexperience and the fault of others around them. I have no problem with Mr. Doe’s order of chronology. But I find your giving credence to this roundabout rationalization of the PRC very baffling. 
 
As to V.R.’s statement, he is obviously employing irony to expose the flawed logic of yours and Thomas Doe’s reasoning. From your ambiguous remark, I will assume that this also escapes you.
 
K. Koiquoe Wilson
17. 17-04-2007 12:00
 
Count in Order ll.
Gentlment, Gentlment, it's seem that the sample step by step accounts of envents in Liberia are being given personal interpretations. Which of the envents listed in "Count in order l" is not true? Where is the support for any paticular incident? 
I am not related to late president Doe, in any way. Other issues were listed, why the concentration is only on Doe and the PRC? Making up personal interpretations to a listing of national events in Liberia, will not undo any passed event. 
What happened when Doe was killed? Taylor was Elected, what was his Government impact on the nation? More brutal killing where recorded. PRC Killed Liberians, NPFL Killed Liberians also. Is regretable for any one to considered my events listing as rationalizing a particular killing machine in liberia. The facts are right in from of you, still you're refusing to see them. Sorry I can not help you to see reality. Take it, or leave it. Every action in our history, give brith to the other.. Per isaac Newton, 
"To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" You did not know that too? Just get it over my friends.
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
18. 17-04-2007 12:11
 
FLAWED LOGIC IN PLAY?
Just because Doe and his cohorts took up arms and senselessly killed scores of Liberian citizens does not make the PRC revolution equivalent to the American Revolution. The American Revolution had a vision, a sense of purpose that entailed a better life for its citizenry. That vision is greatly manifest in the great nation of America that we see today. 
 
By contrast, the PRC revolution was simply a mercenary agenda in which its perpetrators sought to enrich themselves in materialism and killed off all detractors in the process. Unlike the American Revolution, the end result of the PRC revolution was the utter impoverishment and disenfranchisement of its people. 
 
Making any reasonable analogy between these two vastly different revolutions, both in conception and results, would be tantamount to an analogy between an apple and a rock. They both have weight and occupy space.
 
K. Koiquoe Wilson
19. 17-04-2007 12:12
 
CHEAP SHOT!!!!!!
Mr. Adolph, you seem to be very obsessed with me. Even when I'm not in a discussion, you seem to find a way to mention me. 
 
It seems you are not having a good night sleep all because of me. If I'm frightening you, do not be. I'm a very cool and amicable guy. It is not my intention to make someone life unbearable. 
 
I'll just caution you not to take cheap shot at me when I'm not in a discussion with you. I'll let your comment about me past, but next time, it will not past.
 
D. Smith
20. 17-04-2007 12:45
 
Programmer/Analyst
Mr. Wilson and his pals tried and continue to try really hard to equate the PRC revolution to carnage and a bunch of barbarians. But what they failed to realize is that Liberia was founded on the principle of carnage and barbarism. As I followed their line of reasoning, it seem to me that everything that has gone wrong since 1847 when Liberia was deemed an independent state should be blamed on April 12th, 1980.  
 
From this line of reason, one can easily deduce that Wilson and his cronies have some partnership with the Liberian descendants of American ex-slaves or that they are in fact direct descendants of the ex-slaves. These in my opinion are the same people that brought out their bulldozer Charles Taylor (now doing time in the Hague for the carnage he created in Sierra Leone) to end the reign of the semiliterate native African President named Samuel K. Doe. They had brought out the bulldozer to end Doe’s presidency and in the process ended the lives of a quarter of a million Liberians.  
But despite what Wilson and his Americo Liberians friends may think of us, we have the advantage of having lived the Liberian history on which they now preached and claimed to have started in 1980. These returned slaves kept us, African Liberians, as field slaves for well over 130 years in the land of our ancestors. For nearly a century and a half they gradually promoted us into the rough equivalent of house slaves when they domesticated a few of us by helping us sport such names as Thomas Barclay, James Nelson, Robert Kennedy, George Wilson, etc., as our new identities and as testimony of our acquired stylishness. But the bulk of the Natives remained Africans because they could not help it. For daring to remain Africans they, in the eyes of the ruling Americos, forfeited their rights to any aspiration beyond being tolerated by the snobbish offsprings of ex-slaves.  
Yet we never jointly conspired against the ruling Americos. It should therefore be comprehensible - though not explainable - why one frantic, emotionally ill-equipped but otherwise armed African native named Samuel Doe showed up at the Executive Mansion in 1980 to end our century-and-a-half streak of exclusion by the team of returned Africans from slave ports in the New World. Granted it was a disgraceful day in April 1980 when brothers killed brothers, we all learned from that sadistic explosion, and built a somewhat better democratic institution even with a vagabond juvenile at the helm.  
The next elections were the freest in our history even if villains took over the counting of the ballots. The True Whig Party (of Americo-Liberians) that was overthrown by the mob of vagrant youth in 1980 also came to power through an electoral process. But there was a difference. The government controlled by the True Whig Party allowed no other candidates to oppose the single Whig candidate in each election. This should throw into dispute the very meaning of the term "election." Before that, elections were still all-Americo fêtes even if there was resistance within. At that time Africans were still field slaves to the Americo Dynasty.  
During that dispensation what did we native Africans not do? We danced for the presidents, paid taxes, claimed no rights or privileges, yet they found time and reasons to beat us still into further compliance. At what time or point would a reasonable person expect angry reaction from the subjects of the abuse of this enormity? We killed 14 of them in the 1980 coup. They waited for just 10 years (we had waited 130), and then killed 250,000 of us. They are back!  
About all I can agree with Wilson and cronies about is their use of the words "carnage" and barbarians as part of their observations on the 1980 coup. But that carnage began for us when the free American slaves hit the shores of West Africa. We only got a respite in 1980 when the first African, who packed a gun, ended the 130-year rule over the native Africans by the self-proclaimed Americos who had fled slavery in America and founded Liberia in the name of democracy better put, THE-MORE-CRISIS.  
Wilson and cronies level of presumption is therefore intolerable. What more do these Americo-Liberians want from us? We surrendered a century and a half of our lives to absorb the anger of the returnees on behalf of any African who had anything to do with selling our brothers and sisters abroad. We occupy only a tiny part of Africa and we are probably not the particular people who took part in slave trade. We are Africans; we can’t help it. If these returnees still don’t like us after 160 years, then they have returned to the wrong part of Africa.  
The scale of death and destruction they have visited upon us is more than we are capable of envisaging. We killed 14 after 150 years of suppression; they killed 250,000 after ten years of counter action by us. If they make us unto the murderers they have proven to be, there will be nothing left of Africa.
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
21. 17-04-2007 13:39
 
for christ sake
Leo you should not make such statments, this whole mess led to the spillage of liberian blood. may you all soul rest in peace. that is if you all got a soul from "Putu" mountain. :?
 
Gar-Gar
22. 17-04-2007 13:43
 
LEO, THE REBEL
LEO, THE REBEL JUST HOLD ON TO YOUR U.S PASSPORT AND LEAVE LIBERIA ALONG.
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
23. 17-04-2007 14:09
 
Don't blur history
Leo, 
 
I am completely flabergasted at your poor analysis of the topic under discussion here. Your output defines to a greater extent, how ignorant you are concerning unfolding events in this part of Africa we call Liberia. 
 
You brazenly attempt to blur the history of Liberia when you mentioned that the nation was founded on principles of carnage and barbarism. Your statement points to your lack of knowledge about how and why the Liberia was created as a nation in the first place.  
 
Most disgusting about your statement is that you tend to on the team of confusionists who believe they are more Liberians than others....I mean the people who result to the use of words like "Country people and Settlers", in attempts to divide the citizens of Liberia along ethic corridors. 
 
You further choose to recklessly misappropriate the the pronoun "us", an evidence of your ethnic division, to satisfy your ambiguous representation of those you call indigenous Liberians. But be ware that while it is true that there are native Liberians, not all of them think along ethnic line. There are true nationalist indigenous Liberians out there, who would not encourage ethnic divide, but rather strife for a better Liberia for all. 
 
I challenge you to point to one historical event during the arrivial of the freed slaves on the shores of Liberia, that you can equate to the barbarism introduced by the so-called indigenous Liberians soldiers who, for the first time, publicly marched 14 living human beings to death on South Beach on April 21, 1980.  
 
While it is true that there were some political scuffles during the 133 years of Americo-Liberian rule in Liberia, there is no evidence of a massacre like the indigenous Liberians did under the PRC. 
 
You mentioned Taylor as the birthchild of the Americo-Liberians, and that they brought him in to end Doe's nightmare....what a constipated mind at work! I wonder were you during the war period in Liberia? How many Americo-Liberian children you saw on the battle front killing each other? Weren't they(indigenous)killing one another. Did Charles Taylor bring in people from outer space to fight the war? Weren't they, the same indigenous children whose parents died at the hands of Doe earlier?  
Infact a great proportion of the fighters in Liberia were Doe's former death squad members that were being re-cycled among the various warring factions. So catch yourself and stop preaching ethnic tones in this period of reconciliation. 
 
I rest for now and waiting for you to come out with historical facts to my challenge above.
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
24. 17-04-2007 14:55
 
Only The Facts, Sir
Leo Tarr’s angry and divisive sentiment expressed in his irrational tirade certainly opens a window into the type of mindset that we are hearing from. As intelligent as Mr. Tarr may appear to be in his discourse, he certainly comes across as being in the frame of mind of his idol Doe, and that of the very Taylor whom he seem to greatly detest. The “Them against us,” and “We kill them and they kill us” mentality that Mr. Tarr proudly espouses is right out of the despotic playbook of the likes of Doe and Taylor. Look where it has gotten Liberia so far. 
 
The thrust of our discussion was centered around the PRC regime. Naturally, the opinions proffered by discussants would be ones that are relevant to this regime. There have been many corrupt regimes in Liberia. But because, in briefly discussing the PRC, one does not automatically digress into denouncing every other oppressive regime on the planet, Mr. Tarr draws the foolhardy and illogical conclusion that we, who denounce the barbarism of the PRC, are advocates of other oppressive regimes. 
 
From this flawed line of reasoning, Mr. Tarr also purport to know the ancestry of every discussant in this debate. What if I inform Mr. Tarr that I have written numerous articles and comments in this very forum that incessantly and unwaveringly denounced the Taylor regime, would he still cling to his half-baked reasoning that I am an advocate of the Taylor regime? Would he then see the absurdity of his line of reasoning and honestly seek to correct it or will Mr. Tarr steadfastly cling to his angry and callow tendencies to jump to unreasonable conclusions. 
 
Mr. Tarr also seeks to incredulously stretch the limits of logic by proffering the rather absurd premise that the recent successful election in Liberia should be attributed to the success of Doe. What is abundantly clear, irrespective of anyone’s ancestry, is that Doe was the vanguard of the most ghastly suffering ever endured by the people of Liberia. This election is a credit to the resolve and tenacity of the Liberian people. Even in their most deplorable circumstance after 15 years of war, they have the fortitude to aspire to a Liberia where all its people can live peacefully and in pursuit of individual happiness. This dream of the Liberian people is diametrically opposed to the fanatical “Them against us,” and “We kill them and they kill us” mentality that Mr. Tarr so viscerally embraces. 
 
It will seem to me that the only who person who is rationalizing any failed regime is Mr. Tarr.
 
K. Koiquoe Wilson
25. 17-04-2007 15:05
 
Only The Facts, Sir
Mr Wilson , the American Revolution happened because the Americans were revolting against royalty and aristocracy.While we may not have had Kings and Queens in Liberia , we had a divide that made it difficult for most of the indigenous people to exist. Because America turn out to be a successful country does not mean that its revolution was any different. I am sure that the the countless Indians that live on Reservations would take an objection to your staement.Whatever the outcome of the April 12 coup became , it does not change the fact that a change was inevitable.That does not make the PRC my buddies. 
 
D Smith , Iam not obsessed with you, maybe you like to think that. I referenced you because Wilson lambasted you for making a comment to Nat where you equated him with acts of the PRC simply because he worked in that government.Now Wilson turns around and calls the PRC my buddies simply because I said they were inexperienced.The final conclusion is that makes both you and Wilson idiots, for lack of a better word.Like I stated time and time again I do not support Doe, I was in high school.But does that matter to you , no. You read what you want to read.It 's a pity.
 
ADOLPH
26. 17-04-2007 15:21
 
Leo Tarr
Leo Tarr, 
"WHAT YOU SOW, YOU SHALL ALSO REAP.” I see from you long post of your dislike of your African Americans brothers and sisters you are still a non-believer.  
 
Galatians 6 
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.  
 
Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.  
 
For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.  
 
But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.  
For every man shall bear his own burden.  
 
Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.  
 
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
27. 17-04-2007 16:07
 
follow your own example WILSON
I have stated countless times that I am not a supporter of the Doe regime, yet you infer that the PRC were my buddies because I stated that the lack of experience they had did not prepare them for running an effective government.Now you sit on your high horse and want to criticize Tarr for that which you are guilty of.This is the mindset of you, VR and your other "cronies".
 
ADOLPH
28. 17-04-2007 16:27
 
for christ sake
Gar-Gar, which Liberian BLOOD, you're reffering to? those that died directly or indirectly from the 130 years of Suppression. As indicated by Leo? This whole mess started back then. Long before April 1980. From my view, only the PRC Execution has being the only problem. What about the 250,000 people that got killed when the NPFL Was trying to take back their private farm {Liberia}. Everything is right. Except that PRC Execution of 14 former slaves, has been the only major crime in liberia. 
Some slaves got freedow by killing their masters. After 130 years of suppression, you can expect anything. 
The very NPFL, that created Taylor, on Liberia. Are now blaming the war (they created ) for everything. Becareful what you do, or asked for, you might get just that...Most of you may just have to get it over with...if you're not able to undo it.
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
29. 17-04-2007 17:24
 
IDIOT????
Idiot is not a lack of better word, Mr. Adolph. Idiot is the limit of your knowledge. For one with a limited knowledge always result to insult in a discussion. 
 
Why the people on the other side of the debate stop their generalization and compare Liberians presidents individually and show who was a good president or a murderous president.
 
D. Smith
30. 17-04-2007 17:56
 
Only The Facts, Sir
It is difficult to comprehend why a person as intelligent as Adolph will argue publicly that there was no difference between the American Revolution and the PRC revolution while the evidence of these revolutions glaringly stares him in the face. 
 
The American Revolution was carried out by serious and visionary men whose sacrifice was for a larger purpose and not merely for their self-aggrandizement. The result of this sacrifice, the greatest nation on the planet, is the envy of the world today, including England. This does not make America a flawless nation. There are myriad vices regarding America that you and I do not countenance. The ill-treatment of Indians that you alluded is one example. Be that as it may, America has been the undeniable envy of the world, the idiocy of the current administration notwithstanding. 
 
What the PRC entailed was a bunch of visionless and ill-equipped men who used their martial takeover of the country to live a life of pleasurable jaunt at the expense of its citizens. If inexperience was a factor as you argue, there were myriad well-equipped Liberians of various ethnic persuasions who could have been called upon to elevate Liberia from its doldrums. But instead, they visited upon Liberia one of the most brutal regimes ever registered in the annals of governments of the world. 
 
In contrast to the result of the American Revolution, the PRC revolution reduced Liberia to one of the most impoverished and underdeveloped nations in the world. You may wish to draw contrived analogies between the American and PRC revolutions; as far as I am concerned, they were both supposedly revolutions. That is where the comparison ends for me. 
 
Incidentally, your name-calling that you are resorting to is very much unbecoming of the Adolph that we have come to know and like. This is usually symptomatic of a person incapable of defending his arguments. Just thought I would mention this.
 
K. Koiquoe Wilson
31. 17-04-2007 21:50
 
The Curse of Ignorance
As I read these posts I am astounded by the amount of ignorance and backwards thinking being displayed by some our Liberian counterparts. 
 
PRC supporters in disguise. We shouldn't be surprised, it's been less than 30 years since these murderers and liars cursed our country.
 
V.R.
32. 17-04-2007 21:54
 
ONLY THE FACTS SIR
No I intended to call you that because I wanted you to know that I despised being aligned with the PRC because I felt that a change was necessary.D Smith , knowledge is power and you estimating the scope of mine does not change my insatiable thirst for seeking it. 
Back to the discussion why do you want to compare Presidents D Smith? To you only bad presidents came after the 1980 coup.Everything was fine before that. 
Mr Wilson I am not defending the legacy of the PRC. In as much as slavery produced the civil rights movement, unrest with the colonial rule of the British produced America.In my opinion 133 years of oppressive rule by a minority was bound to bring a change. That change came in the form of the PRC. 
The first settlers arrived in Jamestown in 1619, America got its independence in 1776, Thats 157 years Mr Wilson.Its 2007 and that makes 457 years that America has struggled to become a great nation.There was no vision to form America Wilson,America was founded because the people did not want to pay heavy taxes to the British to protect them especially since they had no REPRESENTATION in the British parliament. So it created civil unrest, much like the rice riots of 1979 that preceded the 1980 coup.There are parallels to be drawn, and the first that you and your compadres refuse to acknowledge is that Liberia was colonized by the American -Liberian.So to your convenience the problem started in 1980, while I say it started when the settlers arrived.So you want to discuss the PRC, lets also discuss the TWP.
 
ADOLPH
33. 17-04-2007 22:08
 
LEO, THE REBEL
To LEO TARR 
 
I'M BEGGING YOU TO PLEASE USE YOUR EDUCATION AND THE MONEY YOU AND BOYS HAVE TO WAGE WAR ON LIBERIA AND UNSEAT ELLEN AND INSTALL A "NATIVE LED" GOVERNMENT TO BE USED TO BUILD SCHOOLS AND IMPROVE THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE OF GRAND GEDEH. you could also start from philly.
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
34. 17-04-2007 23:23
 
Full Disclosure, Mr. Tarr
It is rather disingenuous of Leo Tarr to present the fascade of an objective discussant in this debate when in actuality Mr. Tarr is a close associate of Doe and his criminal cohorts. Mr. Tarr is a direct beneficiary of the largess of Doe and his corrupt and tyrannical regime. 
 
In the interest of full disclosure and intellectual honesty, one would presume that it would be incumbent upon Mr. Tarr to disclose these facts in his lengthy diatribe. This certainly speaks to the level of integrity of the closet defenders of the PRC that I alluded to earlier. But then again, expecting any level of integrity from a member of this unctuous and roguish bunch would be a paradox in itself.
 
K. Koiquoe Wilson
35. 18-04-2007 11:50
 
YOUR YOUR YOUR YOUR
Once upon a time somewhere in Rivercess or Grand Bassa County. There was a Chief.This Chief's family was very proud.They had sold the land to the first light skinned people who came from across the water, a place call America.These people in the hot sun they wore hats, and shirts with long tail, their women would were gloves.fine people them.Well this Chief he was the most powerful Zoe in the land, all the way from Shebro island to Voinjama. 
, people knew of this Chief. Because of the arrangement his father had made with these people, he was the only native to be called a Liberian thus giving him voting rights and a seat in their government.He wasn't allowed to come to Monrovia but every weekend whoever was the President had to go and spend it with him. His name was Chief Diaimoi and he was tall, dark skinned imposing and handsome figure.  
There came a time where his friend CDB King had a brilliant idea.This idea he told Chief Diamoi needed his help.Every weekend when he came to visit, the chief would give him thirty young men strong, he would in turn send them to Fernado Po to work for nothing. The money that he got he and his boys would share, and in return Chief Diaimoi would be inducted into the masonic lodge in monrovia thus killing two birds with one stone( allowing the chief to enter monrovia and being the only Zoe in the masonic temple until that fool Kanyon came along but that would not be till 1980).Chief Diaimoi was very happy and had a big feast for all in the land.Also he was told that he would no longer have to pay hut taxes or any taxes, again he celebrated with a big feast.One day CDB came rushing in the compound yelling for the Chief. Diaimoi, Diaimoi he called. The Chief came, what happen CDB? he asked.CDB said my man some white boy dem in a league, they angry. they want to take me to court for sending these boys to that place. From now on we will send dem to monrovia, where they can live with us, we will change their names so those white people won't suspect. I going to Harper right now to go get that Tubman boy to defend me.Anybody ask you tell them the native people did it. you hear.The Chief said okay.But things did not go too well for CDB, even though Tubman stopped them from dissolving the country with Chief Diaimoi help( he testify that the other chiefs dem did it). The people in monrovia asked CDB to leave, the real reason being that he brought a country man in the masonic temple.The Chief became depressed, the new man they brought sometime he would come and sometime he would call and say he busy.The chief started getting dry.Everybody was worried. 
Then good news came. Tubman the man that defended CDB, he was going to be the new President. You see Tubman was the one that told the Chief to lie, he liked the Chief. Oh the Chief was happy, he declared a two month feast. Tubman told him, he said listen, I know some people getting mad but this is what we will do. We will tell the people they can vote it will make them happy.But what I will do is I will make it so that the only way you can vote is if you own land, since they don't own land they can't vote.Chief Diaimoi and Tubman started laughing. Tubman give him a cigar and the Chief said Tubman you smart.They laughed again.The Chief told Tubman when he was leaving he said take this my son here, make sure he live with the Baker people because I hear when you stay with those people they can give you car.I want when he come here he be the only one with car then the people will know that your can treat people good. They started laughing again.  
That night the chief went to sleep and he had a dream. In this dream there was a boy named Samuel.The boy saw this fine girl, her name Geraldine Johnson. He said you girl I want you.The girl said no, you country boy you can 't be president.It made Sammy mad.Sammy said I will join the Army and be President, then I will love to all the lightskinned women and I will eat all the country money. I will be just like these people.So in the dream Sammy went and join the army. He met two Thomas and one Nichloas. He told them I want you to help me.They said to do what. He said I met this girl but she do not want me because I country boy. so I want to overthrow the government, we will make it look to the people like the congo people treating us bad but in reality it is this girl i want. If your tell my secret I will kill all of you. you hear me.those other guys said okay, they just wanted to know if they would be able to get those congo girls too. Sammy said the one I don't want, you can have.One of the Thomas them wanted to argue, the other two said my man shut up man. old man Diaimoi woke up sweating, he just had a glimpse into the future and he had to do something about it.  
The next morning his son came with good news, his wife just had a baby boy.A light went of in the chief head,good he said he would name this boy Little Diaimoi, it would be him who would dispell these myths when they arose. Everyday he would tell him how good these people were, how beautiful Liberia was, and when that trouble maker Gbessegee who was always learning book started telling people the truth, Diaimoi would be the one to stop it. He called President Tubman and told him of his plan and President Tubman laughed because he was already ahead of the Chief. He had placed two boys already for the same thing.One named Koiquoe who was living with the Wilson family, and the other VR who was with the Daniels family.Don't worry Tubman said Diaimoi will live with the Smith family, these boys wil grow up together and when we are gone they will defend us.Tubman and Chief Diaimoi started laughing, and gentlemen this is what Borbor told me, so I pass it on to you. The End
 
ADOLPH
36. 18-04-2007 11:51
 
ONLY THE FACTS SIR
Adolph,  
You speak of change as if change is an abstract concept that exists in a vacuum. The PRC brought change, but to what end? It seems as though complete anarchy would have been acceptable change to you. Would you have been satisfied with anarchy as well?  
 
What we advocate is not change for the sake of change, per se, but viable and constructive change. Change that led to the massive and heinous killing of countless Liberians seems to be acceptable change to you. Change that led to the most egregious impoverishment of the Liberian populace ever is acceptable change to you. Change that led to the unconscionable looting of the country’s resources by a bunch of incorrigible megalomaniacs is change to you. Change that regressed Liberia to its most dilapidated state ever is okay by Adolph. Need I continue? 
 
By any reasonable barometer, the above enumerated situations would be seen as unadulterated failure. Yet, you find this to be laudable change upon which you are willing to hang your reputation. How can I further argue with you? 
 
You never cease to astound with your incredulous assertions. Do you really believe that the great nation of America just occurred through some act of serendipity and there was no vision behind it? Astounding! I will surmise that based on the ADOLPH Great Nation Theory, Liberians can just sit around and wait for some serendipitous force to elevate Liberia to a great nation. No vision required.  
 
Frankly, trying to follow your convoluted comparison of the PRC with the American Revolution and then your Great Nation Theory is giving me vertigo. Since I cannot reason with you otherwise, I think I will acquiesce at this point.
 
K. Koiquoe Wilson
37. 18-04-2007 13:00
 
GENERALIZATION OR SPECIFICITY !!!!
Mr. Adolph, let me just prove you wrong. On my list of bad presidents of Liberia are C.D.B. King, for his involvement with forced labor, William Tubman, for serving too long and accomplishing so little, Samuel Doe, for his brutality and Charles Taylor, for his brutality also. 
 
And for good Presidents, Joseph J. Roberts, for working under difficult conditions to guide a young nation, William Tolbert, for opening more opportunities for all Liberians than any other President before him and next to be on this list is Ellen Sirleaf , her achievements are still unfolding. 
 
As Dr. King said, judge people by their character and not the color of their skin or what ethnic group they belong to - it is just a paraphrase with a Liberian twist.
 
D. Smith
38. 18-04-2007 15:22
 
Convoluted thinking
Mr Wilson, America did not want those people they sent back to Liberia forcing them to leave.It was you get your freedom when you ship away from here. 
Those people who had been slaves should have known better instead they came to a land where instead of living with the people they met, they reign oppression upon them.After One hundred and thirty three years , a change occurred.As Ellen Johnson Sirleaf travels to the United States every third Sunday in the month, instead of focusing on the PRC, you should be wondering how this great country America failed the Liberian people.As Charles Taylor sat in a Boston prison how did he escaped and unleashed a 15 year war upon us? But no it is easy to blame the PRC, the ignorant illiterates. what about Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and her burn the city down and we will fix it? I personally am glad that she is there because she offers the best chance and her words become more prophetic as now she gets to build the place she helped destroyed. But no don't blame her , blame Chairman Doe.  
In concluding I expect this from you, this comes from a person who does not want Robert Johnson to go and invest in Liberia. Yes I read your convoluted article.And you talk to me about vision. Please reread American history again, I understand you might have only read the parts that pertain to your citizenship exam. I am sure you think they fought the civil war to free the slaves. Also ask yourself where did those 13 unenlisted men come from, and whose support they may have had?Finally you live in a country where less than one percent of the population own 99 percent of the wealth, tell me what economics says about that.
 
ADOLPH
39. 18-04-2007 17:16
 
ONLY THE FACTS, SIR
Adolph, 
I am glad that you have decided to return to serious discussions after reading your previous artless fable. I was afraid that you had run out of ideas, hence your contrived and tedious attempt at a fable. I am still somewhat disappointed that your return to serious discussions includes creative use of facts (some may call it lying) that is typically not in your character. I will address this momentarily. 
 
Your assertion that America gave slaves an ultimatum to either ship out of America or remain slaves is unsupported by history and is less than factual. History tells us that many freed slaves left for Africa of their own volition. Besides, how would your theory account for the majority of freed slaves who continued to reside in America? Were they also subject to this ultimatum? How did they circumvent it? 
 
When Charles Taylor was incarcerated in Massachusetts, his violent tendency had not yet been exposed to the world. There was no previous activity of Taylor that could have portent his violent future. America was faced with the dilemma of extraditing an unscrupulous individual to an unscrupulous and heinously brutal dictator. In which case, America would have been complicit in the certain violent death of Taylor at the hands of Doe. I can only suppose that they opted to capitulate to the lesser of two evils at that point in time. If Doe were a ruler with a modicum of humanity, one can speculate that the outcome would have been somewhat different. 
 
Your suggestion that my article proposed that Robert Johnson should not invest in Liberia is an outright lie, my friend. That article cautioned that while in our time of dire needs for development, we should not be tempted to compromise our values for investment dollars. This word of caution was predicated on the fact the Bob Johnson’s television network, BET, portrays his fellow Blacks in the most undignified light for advertising dollars. Black women are treated as merely sex objects and Black men are depicted as ignorant drug dealers, misogynists, naively materialistic, etc., etc. The article cautioned that if Mr. Johnson has it in his character to portray his own people in such grotesque light, one should exercise a degree of caution in dealing with him.  
 
Your last posting which I am attempting to respond to is very unfocused and all over the place. So I will stop here for now.
 
K. Koiquoe Wilson
40. 18-04-2007 19:25
 
Convoluted thinking
Adolph, 
The PRC, who was ignorant and illiterates are the blame for the condition of Liberia today. This so-called PRC, Native ruling for the Natives was the worse, and the most dark period in Liberian history so far. This so-called PRC, Native government set into motion 25 years of killing and the destruction of a democratic government system that has brought Liberia and the Natives nothing in return for their so-called liberation from years of oppression under Americo rule. What you sow you shall also reap. The PRC sowed just what Liberians are reaping today, poverty, ignorance, illiterate and living condition worst then the ancestor was just 200 years ago.
 
Afro-American
41. 18-04-2007 20:37
 
Convoluted thinking
For more information contact: 
Elizabeth Campell, Institute Communications & Public Affairs 
Contact Elizabeth This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  
404-894-4233 
Re-inventing Telecom Technology in Liberia 
Industry, academic, government, and non-profit leaders will study the national policy to revitalize Liberia’s telecom and computer infrastructure 
 
Atlanta (April 18, 2007) — President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia, the first woman ever elected head of an African state, will unveil the new National Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy for Liberia to leaders from industry, non-profit organizations, and academia at the “E-Liberia Vision 2010” conference on April 23-27 in Monrovia, Liberia. 
Georgia Tech President Wayne Clough and Liberian P 
Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, with Tech President Wayne Clough, visited the Georgia Tech campus in fall 2006. 
300 dpi JPG = 606.82 KB 
 
Sponsored by the Government of Liberia, the event will include participation from Microsoft, Cisco Systems, the Soros Foundation’s Open Society Initiative for West Africa, the World Bank, the International Financial Corporation, USAID, and the Georgia Institute of Technology. Participants from Liberia, the region, and the international community will explore how best to revitalize and rebuild Liberia’s ICT capacity, and consider how these technologies can reinforce Liberia’s poverty reduction strategy. 
 
During the conference, two new national ICT facilities will be inaugurated: a community-based PC laboratory sponsored by (1) Microsoft’s Unlimited Potential program and implemented by Georgia Tech and the Center for Empowerment of Women and Children, and (2) a multi-media PC laboratory at the University of Liberia implemented by Socketworks of Nigeria and supported by the International Finance Corporation. 
Michael Best 
Dr. Michael Best, assistant professor in Georgia Tech’s Sam Nunn School of International Affairs and in the College of Computing 
300 dpi JPG = 904.97 KB 
 
“We are very pleased to be associated with the Government of Liberia and its development efforts,” says Aloy Chife, CEO of Socketworks. “Our aim for the multi-media PC laboratory at the University of Liberia (the “Liberia Digital Bridge” project) is to partner with Liberia to accelerate its transition to a knowledge-based society in which the currency of exchange is information. Our goal is to improve economic opportunities by introducing Liberian students to the use of computers as a productivity tool. In so doing, we help to develop skills and competencies that enable the use of IT for economic and social development.” 
 
Microsoft’s Unlimited Potential (UP) is a global initiative designed to help broaden digital inclusion and aid global workforce development by providing technology skills through community technology centers. Georgia Tech has been a long-time research partner with the UP program and is the lead organization in their Liberia activities. These programs include a computer center at Monrovia’s Center for Empowerment of Women and Children focused on livelihood development and training among women displaced by the civil war. In addition, under the UP program a computer facility and training center will be implemented at the JFK Hospital, Liberia’s largest health center. This center will be used to train hospital staff in computer literacy, health informatics, and tele-health services. 
 
Socketworks offers full-range IT services for universities in developing countries from student laboratories and network connectivity to university administration software services and support. Their technologies allow administrators, teachers, students, and parents to be better connected to each other and to the university. But most importantly, they connect students to the information they need to excel in today’s world. Socketworks has pioneered a financially self-sustaining business model based on affordable student subscription fees. 
 
During E-Liberia Vision 2010, Dr. Michael Best, assistant professor in Georgia Tech’s Sam Nunn School of International Affairs and in the College of Computing, will co-organize a two-day workshop examining the Liberian vision for ICT. Sessions will focus on: education; rebuilding infrastructure in a post-conflict country; regional cooperation; and cultural issues. Over the past year, Dr. Best has directed an active research project for Liberia, which is supported by the Open Society Institute for West Africa. Five Georgia Tech graduate students have spent time in Monrovia studying Liberian ICT conditions and challenges, and are currently providing technical assistance. 
 
“Our research in Liberia has been truly life-changing for the many Georgia Tech students who have worked there on our projects,” remarked Best. “And we hope that the work continues to assist the people of Liberia develop their ICT infrastructure and rise from the terrors of civil conflict.” 
 
Additionally, Cisco is providing a one-day ICT development training program to public and private sector leaders. A significant delegation from Cisco will lay the groundwork for accelerating the proliferation of Liberia’s ICT infrastructure in the local, regional, and global context. The government workshops will focus on: leapfrogging in infrastructure development; implementing the new national ICT policy; identifying key areas for Cisco NetAcademies; e-Government best practice models. The technical workshops will focus on IP enabled technology: optical; wireless; access networks (GPRS, CDMA, IP); services and revenue generation models. 
 
E-Liberia Vision 2010 is sponsored by the Government of Liberia and co-sponsored by the Open Society Initiative for West Africa, Microsoft Corporation, Georgia Institute of Technology, USAID, The World Bank and Cisco Systems. More information can be found at: http://www.mopt.gov.lr/ 
 
For More Information Contact: 
Amara Konneh, Deputy Minister of State 
Republic of Liberia 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  
 
Elizabeth Campell 
Georgia Institute of Technology 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  
 
Ndidiamaka Victoria Uwadoka 
Microsoft Nigeria 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  
 
Riva Levinson 
KRL International LLC for Socketworks 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  
Related Link 
 
Republic of Liberia Ministry
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
42. 18-04-2007 23:10
 
Convoluted thinking
By Patrick Worsnip Wed Apr 18, 7:02 PM ET 
 
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Liberia would be allowed to resume diamond exports under a draft U.N. resolution introduced on Wednesday, ending a 6-year-old ban aimed at stopping so-called blood diamonds reaching the world market. 
ADVERTISEMENT 
 
The resolution, introduced at the Security Council by the United States, applauded the West African country for setting up controls on its diamonds, which helped fuel a 14-year civil war that ended in 2003. 
 
The draft said Liberia had made enough progress to meet the demands of the Kimberley Process, a mechanism that requires participating governments to provide certificates for rough diamonds to show they were mined from legitimate operations. 
 
Blood diamonds have also been blamed for financing wars in other African countries, including Sierra Leone, Angola, Ivory Coast and the 
Democratic Republic of Congo. 
 
Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, who took office last year, has pushed hard for an end to the embargo, saying the money from diamond sales was badly needed to finance reconstruction in her war-ravaged country. 
 
Security Council diplomats said speakers at Wednesday's consultations had favored relaxing the ban. Experts would meet on Friday to discuss the resolution, which could then be adopted in the next week or two. 
 
"Liberia has put all the required safety nets in place and the Kimberley Process has given them a clean bill of health, so Liberia will no longer be associated with blood diamonds," South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo told reporters. 
 
The resolution, if passed, would call on the Kimberley Process to report to the Security Council within 90 days on Liberia's compliance, after which the council would review its decision to lift the ban. 
 
The Security Council has already lifted a ban on Liberian timber exports. If the diamond ban is scrapped, the only sanctions still in force against Liberia would be a travel ban and assets freeze against certain named individuals.
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
43. 19-04-2007 00:39
 
PLEASE LEARN WILSON
Was Liberia Founded By Freed U.S. Slaves?  
 
By Mary Kay Ricks 
 
07/05/03: (Slate) In Tuesday's Washington Post, an editorial urging President Bush to send peacekeepers to civil war-wracked Liberia noted that the country was "founded by freed U.S. slaves." Is that true? 
 
Not quite. Although some freed American slaves did settle there, Liberia was actually founded by the American Colonization Society, a group of white Americans—including some slaveholders—that had what certainly can be described as mixed motives. In 1817, in Washington, D.C., the ACS established the new colony (on a tract of land in West Africa purchased from local tribes) in hopes that slaves, once emancipated, would move there. The society preferred this option to the alternative: a growing number of free black Americans demanding rights, jobs, and resources at home. 
 
Notable supporters of transporting freed blacks to Liberia included Henry Clay, Francis Scott Key, Bushrod Washington, and the architect of the U.S. Capitol, William Thornton—all slave owners. These "moderates" thought slavery was unsustainable and should eventually end but did not consider integrating slaves into society a viable option. So, the ACS encouraged slaveholders to offer freedom on the condition that those accepting it would move to Liberia at the society's expense. A number of slave owners did just that. 
 
When the first settlers were relocated to Liberia in 1822, the plan drew immediate criticism on several fronts. Many leaders in the black community publicly attacked it, asking why free blacks should have to emigrate from the country where they, their parents, and even their grandparents were born. Meanwhile, slave owners in the South vigorously denounced the plan as an assault on their slave economy. 
 
Abolitionist resistance to colonization grew steadily. In 1832, as the ACS began to send agents to England to raise funds for what they touted as a benevolent plan, William Lloyd Garrison revved up the opposition with a 236-page book on the evils of colonization and sent abolitionists to England to track down and counter ACS supporters.  
 
But the scheme had some fans. Slave states like Maryland and Virginia were already home to a significant number of free blacks, and whites there—still reeling from Nat Turner's 1831 rebellion, which emancipated slaves had a hand in—formed local colonization societies. Thus encouraged, Maryland legislators passed a law in 1832 that required any slave freed after that date to leave the state and specifically offered passage to a part of Liberia administered by the Maryland State Colonization Society. However, enforcement provisions lacked teeth, and many Marylanders forgot their antipathy to free blacks when they needed extra hands at harvest time. There is no evidence that any freed African-American was forcibly sent to Liberia from Maryland or anywhere else. 
 
By the 1840s, the American Colonization Society was largely bankrupt, and the transported Liberians were demoralized by hostile local tribes, bad management, and deadly diseases. The U.S. government would not claim sovereignty over the colony, so in 1846 the ACS demanded that Liberians declare their independence. In the end, around 13,000 emigrants had sailed to Liberia. Today, vestiges of the emigration can be seen in Liberia's Maryland County, in the American-sounding names we read in the papers, and, as reported on National Public Radio, in one Liberian restaurant's offer of Maryland-style fried chicken. 
 
Mary Kay Ricks is a lawyer and free-lance writer who specializes in history. 
 
© Copyright 2003 Slate
 
ADOLPH
44. 19-04-2007 00:42
 
Some more Education
The American Colonization Society 
The American Colonization Society was established in 1816 by Robert Finley as an attempt to satisfy two groups in America. Ironically, these groups were on opposite ends of the spectrum involving slavery in the early 1800's. One group consisted of philanthropists, clergy and abolitionist who wanted to free African slaves and their descendants and provide them with the opportunity to return to Africa. The other group was the slave owners who feared free people of color and wanted to expel them from America.  
Both the these groups felt that free blacks would be unable to assimilate into the white society of this country. John Randolph, one famous slave owner called free blacks "promoters of mischief." At this time, about 2 million Negroes live in America of which 200,000 were free persons of color. Henry Clay, a southern congressman and sympathizer of the plight of free blacks, believed that because of "unconquerable prejudice resulting from their color, they never could amalgamate with the free whites of this country."  
On December 21, 1816, a group of exclusively white upper-class males including James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Andrew Jackson, Francis Scott Key, and Daniel Webster met at the Davis hotel in Washington D.C. with Henry Clay presiding over the meeting. They met one week later and adopted a constitution. During the next three years, the society raised money by selling membership using the certificate shown here. The Society's members relentlessly pressured Congress and the President for support. In 1819, they received $100,000 from Congress and in January 1820 the first ship, the Elizabeth, sail from New York headed for West Africa with three white ACS agents and 88 emigrants.  
The ship arrive first at Freetown, Sierra Leone then sailed south to what is now the Northern coast of Liberia and made an effort to establish a settlement. All three whites and 22 of the emigrants died within three weeks from yellow fever. The remainders returned to Sierra Leone and waited from another ship. The Nautilus sail twice in 1821 and established a settlement at Mesurado Bay on an island they named Perseverance. It was difficult for the early settlers, made of mostly free-born blacks, who were not born into slavery, but were denied the full rights of American citizenship. The native Africans resisted the expansion of the settlers resulting in many armed conflicts. Nevertheless, in the next decade 2,638 African-Americans migrated to the area. Also, the colony entered an agreement with the U.S. Government to accept freed slaves captured from slave ships.  
During the next 20 years the colony continued to grow and establish economic stability. Since the establishment of the colony, the ACS employed white agents to govern the colony. In 1842, Joseph Jenkins Roberts became the first non-white governor of Liberia. In 1847, the legislature of Liberia declared itself an independent state, with J.J. Roberts elected as its first President.  
The society in Liberia developed into three segments: The settlers with European-African lineage; freed slaves from slave ships and the West Indies; and indigenous native people. These groups would have a profound affect on the history of Liberia.  
^
 
ADOLPH
45. 19-04-2007 01:03
 
Wilson and you Cronies when read ,you le
AMERICAN COLONIZATION SOCIETY 
 
Abolitionists may talk twaddle till the crack of doom, but after all, Colonization is to be the great cure of negro slavery in this country, or it remains uncured. You may free the slave in the South, but he is nevertheless a slave North or South. His shackles are only to be cast off by returning to the land of his forefathers. Here he is surrounded by a wall of prejudice as indestructable as the everlasting hills. The fires of the volcano are not more inextinguishable than this prejudice, and we would therefore remove the black man from its influence, instead of encouraging him to break it down by an insolent bearing towards those who are in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, his intellectual superiors. –newspaper editorial, West Chester, Pennsylvania, 1854.  
 
Ever since pre-Revolutionary times, white Americans had discussed sending freed slaves back to Africa. The notion became a formal movement in December 1816, when delegates from several states met in Washington, D.C., and organized the American Colonization Society. They voted to immediately begin seeking voluntary removal of U.S. blacks to Africa or whatever place Congress thought fit. They took no stance on abolition or emancipation. Instead, the society kept a tight focus on its mission, lobbied Congress, solicited public support, and published a journal, “The African Repository.” Its rhetoric contained lamentations over the cruelty free blacks suffered from the white majority in the United States. It also offered pious assertions that the “degraded and miserable” Africans were ordained so by Providence and the laws of nature. Blacks were to be pitied, but they were doomed to remain inferior. The prejudices and discriminations of white society were an “inevitable necessity.” The two races in America could never be assimilated and it was in the interest of both to live apart. This could best be done by humanely removing the weaker one from the humiliating dominance of the stronger. 
 
Though neglected by historians, the American Colonization Society was vastly more popular with ante-bellum Northerners than abolition societies. Its leading men included clergy, college presidents, and politicians of all parties -- among the officers of the society over the years were Daniel Webster, William H. Seward, Francis Scott Key, and Winfield Scott. It was lauded by the legislatures of 14 states. In 1829, for instance, the Pennsylvania Assembly endorsed the American Colonization Society and agreed that black removal would be “highly auspicious to the best interests of our country.” 
 
Despite their rhetoric of sympathy for freedmen, the colonizationists' beliefs led them to oppose legislative efforts to procure civil rights for blacks and remove the barriers to work, education, and voting. Such efforts, they said, were only designed to tease an inferior people with hope of an equality that never could be real. 
 
Even white abolitionists at first were sympathetic to the colonization movement. But the plan was rejected, emphatically and early, by black leaders. They protested eloquently that they had been born in America and considered themselves Americans. In many cases their fathers had fought and shed blood for American freedom. They felt no connection to Africa, and sought none. Their focus was on political recognition by the majority in the North and abolition of slavery in the South. They rightly recognized colonization as a movement that would sap strength from the sympathetic portion of the white population, while indirectly thwarting their aims by spreading the propaganda of black inferiority. Most of the blacks who took up the society's offer to remove to Africa were recently freed slaves from the South, who had been manumitted in exchange for agreeing to emigrate. 
 
Without coercion, and without black cooperation, the plan went nowhere. By 1831, white abolitionists regarded the Colonization Society as the black leaders did: as a mortal enemy. Society leaders realized they had alienated the only people who could have made their vision a reality -- free blacks -- by continually describing them as a vicious and degraded race. The difficulties the society faced in Liberia, the colony it created in Africa, further undercut its support. Faced with government apathy and riven by internal conflicts, it faded from importance in the 1830s. 
 
But America's race problems only deteriorated as the decades passed, and in the 1850s colonization, and the society, revived. The movement always had two wellsprings: philanthropy to blacks and a sense that America would benefit from a separation of the races. After the 1830s, the second became the main motive. Whites and blacks alike, frustrated by the conflicts tearing the nation apart, reconsidered an exploded idea. Even some who had been abolitionists wavered. The ending of “Uncle Tom's Cabin” is an eloquent appeal for colonization. In the 1850s, colonization was urged by the governor of New York and the legislature of Connecticut. The concept was endorsed by the new Republican Party and was embraced by its first successful presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln. Even some black leaders came to see removal as the only alternative, however undesirable, to eternal repression, poverty, and mob violence in the North. 
 
Henry Clay, a long-time supporter of colonization, made it out to be God's work: 
 
There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children, whose ancestors have been torn from her by the ruthless hand of fraud and violence. Transplanted to a foreign land, they will carry back to their native soil the rich fruits of religion, civilization, law and liberty. May it not be one of the great designs of the Ruler of the universe (whose ways are often inscrutable by short-sighted mortals), thus to transform an original crime, into a signal blessing to that most unfortunate portion of the globe?  
 
The language of an 1854 newspaper article from Pennsylvania is less elevated, but more typical of Northern rhetoric: 
 
We think we have a proper estimate of the character of the negro, and our feelings towards the race are of the most kindly character. We would elevate them, but not at the expense of the white man. We have no idea of sinking our own race, in order to raise up the inferior African. This country belongs to the white man, and not to the negro, and that, in our estimation, is the purest philanthropy, which seeks to place upon the shores of Africa again, those whom cupidity has stolen from their native soil.  
 
Between the rhetoric of the Northern colonizationist and that of the Southern slavery-apologist, there often is little to choose. They saw the same scene, and differed only in the proposed solution: long-term enslavement and paternalism, or short-term riddance back to Africa. The Colonization societies often were most strident where blacks were fewest. Vermont, with only a handful of blacks, had one of the most active in New England. John Hough, professor of languages at Middlebury College, preached this in a sermon to colonizationsts in Montpelier on Oct. 18, 1826: 
 
The state of the free colored population of the United States, is one of extreme and remediless degredation, of gross irreligion, of revolting profligacy, and, of course, deplorable wretchedness. Who can doubt ... the blacks among us are peculiarly addicted to habits of low vice and shameless profligacy? They are found in vast numbers in the haunts of riot and dissipation and intemperance where they squander in sin the scanty earnings of their toil, contract habits of grosser iniquity and are prepared for acts of daring outrage and of enormous guilt. ... Squalid poverty, loathesome and painful disease, fell and torturing passions, and diversified and pitiable forms of misery are to be found (there).  
 
Some of the Northern states tied the movement to their increasingly restrictive black codes. Indiana's 1850 constitution agreed to contribute fines collected under the new anti-immigration law to colonization. The state legislature later set aside $5,000 toward the cause. 
 
This time around, Africa was not the main focus. Instead, supporters sought to found a black colony in some convenient place in the Caribbean basin. The Ohio state House petitioned Congress in 1850 to set aside some of the land lately won from Mexico to be a home for American blacks. But that idea aroused horror in many Americans who saw such a settlement eventually becoming a territory, then a state, and ultimately sending blacks to Congress. Instead, in January 1858, Missouri Republican Rep. Francis P. Blair Jr. proposed to the U.S. House that a committee be created to seek land in Central or South America for a black colony. Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin introduced a similar proposal in the upper chamber. 
 
Abraham Lincoln was an avid colonizationist. He quoted with approval Henry Clay's words on the topic. He touted colonization in his annual messages to Congress in 1861 and '62, in his appeal to border-state representatives for compensated emancipation (July 12, 1862), and in the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation (Sept. 22, 1862). In 1861, addressing Congress, he mentioned contraband slaves who had fallen into the hands of Northern troops, as well as the possibility of border states emancipating their slaves. He advocated that “steps be taken for colonizing both classes, (or the one first mentioned, if the other shall not be brought into existence), at some place, or places, in a climate congenial to them. It might be well to consider, too, -- whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization.” A year later, he told Congress, “I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.” 
 
In his “Speech on the Dred Scott decision” (June 26, 1857), he had scolded both parties for not taking up the cause: 
 
I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventative of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform -- opposition to the spread of slavery -- is most favorable to that separation. 
 
Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one, but 'when there is a will there is a way;' and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body.  
 
Perhaps his most extensive, and infamous, statement on the topic was the Aug. 14, 1862, speech he gave to a group of Northern black leaders in Washington. 
 
Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward, had his eye on the Caribbean basin, which he, Lincoln, and other cabinet members thought was the ideal place to colonize emancipated slaves. Congress set aside $600,000 for this, and during the Civil War the U.S. also was exploring likely spots in Mexico, British Honduras, Guatemala, Honduras, and Costa Rica -- not always with the permission of the national governments. Yet the second colonization movement was as much a failure as the first had been. A projected African-American colony at Chiriqui on the Isthmus of Panama fell through. In 1863 some 450 American blacks were settled at Isle a Vache in Haiti, but it was a debacle and starvation and smallpox wiped them out. 
 
2003 - Slavery in the North - About the Author
 
ADOLPH
46. 19-04-2007 09:53
 
?!?!
Adolph, 
 
I hope you realize that those articles you posted state the complete opposite of your assertion! Case in point, "They voted to immediately begin seeking voluntary removal of U.S. blacks to Africa or whatever place Congress thought fit."  
 
Do you comprehend anything you read?!?! Here's another snippet from an article you posted. "...Liberians were demoralized by hostile local tribes..." You stated the following, "instead of living with the people they met, they reign oppression upon them.." Now my question to you is, how were they supposed to live with the people they met if these people were hostile?!?!  
 
Local tribes attacked the settlers, burned their houses, destroyed their properties, and were still involved in the trade of slaves to the white man and the settlers/former slaves were supposed to owe them something?!?! On what planet are you living....even with all that the settlers still shared their society with the tribes. How many settlers were ever able to participate in "tribal politics". How many Vai were able to participate in the tribal politics of the Kru and vice versa? ZERO!  
 
For ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THREE (133) years Liberia was one of the most stable and respected countries in Africa. It took less than TEN(10) years under the PRC/Doe Administration for all of that to go down the drain. This should be easy math for even you to understand.  
 
Even the most simple minded person can follow these posts and see that you are a complete hypocrite.
 
V.R.
47. 19-04-2007 13:04
 
Effective Government Is All That Matters
Adolph, 
Your research on early Liberian history is very informative. My reading of it informs me that while there were some undertone of coercion for freed slaves to leave for Africa, there was no ultimatum that was successfully executed in this regard. To a degree, I concede that your assertion in this area is supported by history. 
 
My intuition tells me there are two disparate frays in this debate. One, to which I have lent my humble opinion, pertains to the question of whether the PRC regime was an effective governing body in Liberia. To this, I categorically feel that the PRC was an ineffectual and abject disastrous regime. 
 
On the other hand, there is the on-going rancorous and needlessly polarizing debate between the settler faction versus the indigenous faction and who is right and who is wrong, etc., etc. I personally feel that this rancor serves no objective purpose, hence I have stayed away from it despite your futile effort to engage me in this regard.  
 
There were settler-led governments and indigenous-led governments in Liberia that have all proven to be completely feckless. Given all of the country’s resources that were squandered under these various governments, Liberia has nothing to show for it. This should tell us that the only government that matters is a humane and effective government whose agenda is to improve the political, social and economic life of Liberians irrespective of ancestral origins. 
 
America is the most pluralistic society on the planet yet they have managed to build the greatest nation on the face of the planet. Given your remarkable research prowess, do you think you can offer us anything from this that would help to unite Liberians such that we can emulate America’s success in this regard? That in my opinion would be a very useful debate.
 
K. Koiquoe Wilson
48. 19-04-2007 14:02
 
MUTUAL GROUND
Mr Wilson , the reason why I have been in this debate is because there are some who would like to claim that these situations never existed.It has never been my intent to create a further divide between indigenous and settler Liberians. I just hold steadfastly that you can not discuss the history of Liberia and blame just one group.I have never any where proclaim Doe's government as being the best and I include Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in as much that I am happy that she is President in being responsible for where we are today before she became President. 
What I had offer was reconciliation between both sides, that starts with honest discussion, which as you can see is very difficult to do on this forum. The PRC was an abomination but way before 1980, the seeds that brought the PRC was sowed.If Liberia had free and fair elections where all could participate, would we have seen the PRC?  
This is the totality of the discussion that I crave.
 
ADOLPH
49. 19-04-2007 14:16
 
Reasech More
V.R. for the purpose of this agrument, some of the points you made are not clear to me or perhapes, to some of your reading publice. 
1. The local tribes attached the settlers without reason? 
or they were attached over their attitudes to take the people land away from them? 
2.There are over 28 seperate 
tribal groups. Each with their own culture disciplant. what is there for the via to shared with the KRU? Polities? 
I dont get it. 
3. "the settlers still shared their society with the tribes" You serious? Reasech More. The settlers where always asking for names. If you did not have a former slave name, the society did not have anything for you. 
4. What part of the society they shared? National soceity should be own by one group of people. So that, they can shared with the other group? 
5, why will you be a slave in a country. Built the country Railroads and everything, then, when you're free to enjoy, you voluntar to returned to Africa, why? 
6.The 133 years that you think Liberia was stable and peacful, was it for all Liberians? long Discrimination 
produced PRC. The settlers seperate treatment of the native Liberians created the PRC. Therefore, the settlers should be directly responsible for the 1980/PRC. 
Every other activeties thereafter, should be blamed on the settlers. If the settlers and the native liberians where given equal oppartunates, and equal treatment in the national soceity, 1980/PRC could have not been part of our history..To blamed 1980/PRC for everything is not logical....
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
50. 19-04-2007 18:03
 
Reasech More
mr. smith, 
PLEASE DO NOT FLATTER THAT OLD WAR MONGER YOU CALLED PRESIDENT BECAUSE SHE'S NOT DOING ANYTHING INSTEAD OF USING TAX PAYER MONEY TO THE WORLD AND MAKE NAME FOR HERSELF
 
A. Parker


 

Quotable Quote!

“Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible.”  ~ St. Francis of Assisi

Subscribe

Enter your email and click on subscribe to receive LiberianForum updates via email!

Most Recent Comments

This, too, is Interesting: Part I
the last thing is the best :)
10/09/10 05:10 More...

Pains of Airborne Conversation
What a story I felt chilled when I read this comment, I thin...
10/09/10 04:14 More...

In The Cause of The People: An Analysis
where is the majority voice in the new l
DR.tipoteh made a comment about pluto;at the book signing ev...
09/09/10 22:47 More...

This, too, is Interesting: Part I
Yes HYPOCRISY is VERY interesting. :grin
09/09/10 19:27 More...

The Enemy Within: Defense Minister Brownie J. Samukai,
WHY LIBERIANS!!
Wow, not only am I taking aback by these allegations about t...
09/09/10 16:10 More...

In The Cause of The People: An Analysis
Mr.
Mr. Observer, It seems like you are one of those cowards wh...
09/09/10 15:58 More...

Ellen Is Not a Saint
Good article...
Prof. NNK, you've done it again...great article! keep on bro...
09/09/10 12:22 More...

BRINGING CREDIBILITY TO THE 2011 ELECTIONS
Clean hands was so yesterday
Mr. Harris, Running as the candidate with "clean Hands" w...
09/09/10 08:27 More...

If Liberia is America’s Stepchild then Liberia is Haiti’s illegitimate child
Thanks
Thanks for the article Sei, I like the historical trend you ...
09/09/10 06:37 More...

BRINGING CREDIBILITY TO THE 2011 ELECTIONS
Mr. T.Q. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to ans...
08/09/10 23:47 More...

Put together by ImaDesigns! © LiberianForum.Com 2003-2010