a écrit le 9 juin 2018 à 18h57 @MVOG MBI,
I am not against Nganang. I am actually for him and support all what he is about. But to respond to your statement about me, I go to Cameroon about twice a year and go all the way to my village where Sesekou is from called Ewelle. Hence the fact that i live and reside in the US does not mean i dont visit my country regularly. I also have businesses in Cameroon and because of my business interests there i have a vested interest to see that peace reigns in Cameroon.
I am on the contrary against secession by the so called Ambazonians for the singular reason that a bigger country is better for Commerce and with more people we can all prosper better and more efficiently. Population is power and we shoudl take advantage of it. It is true that we were coerced into the Union with Francophones but we have to make the best of it and stop the marginalization by Francophones.
As Anglophones we have been marginalized for long by Francophones as urged by France after they discovered oil in my city of birth Victoria.
However, the point of my essay is that Prof Nganang is a francophone and anglophones are protesting against the mistreatment of a francophone led government and the person to discuss these issues at one of the biggest stages you can find is a francophone. We have plenty of capable anglophones who can do that effectively and that should be the case. It is not only ironic but goes to show the coninued marginalization of anglophones by francophones even though that is not the intent of the Prof.
Secondly, Prof Nganang is not for secession, he is on the contrary a federalist which i am also. Being a federalist he cannot represent adequately the interest of those who want to break away. Thus, the person to expose the anglophone issue has to be one with an interest to secede so he can explain the problem from all angles. In other words Prof Nganang can be biased in his presentation.
On another issue, the anglophone lawyer should want a bigger platform, instead of dwelling on common law because it gives them more clients. the francophones control most of the economy in Cameroon and you cannot be wealthy by just living in SW and NW province as such i have always disagreed with the Anglophone lawyers.
I am not sure if Prof Nganang went to all the corners of NW and SW but going to all the corners of NW and SW does not make you knowledgeable of the anglophone crises. As an anglophone i have lived it and he has not, and that makes all the
I am not against Nganang. I am actually for him and support all what he is about. But to respond to your statement about me, I go to Cameroon about twice a year and go all the way to my village where Sesekou is from called Ewelle. Hence the fact that i live and reside in the US does not mean i dont visit my country regularly. I also have businesses in Cameroon and because of my business interests there i have a vested interest to see that peace reigns in Cameroon.
I am on the contrary against secession by the so called Ambazonians for the singular reason that a bigger country is better for Commerce and with more people we can all prosper better and more efficiently. Population is power and we shoudl take advantage of it. It is true that we were coerced into the Union with Francophones but we have to make the best of it and stop the marginalization by Francophones.
As Anglophones we have been marginalized for long by Francophones as urged by France after they discovered oil in my city of birth Victoria.
However, the point of my essay is that Prof Nganang is a francophone and anglophones are protesting against the mistreatment of a francophone led government and the person to discuss these issues at one of the biggest stages you can find is a francophone. We have plenty of capable anglophones who can do that effectively and that should be the case. It is not only ironic but goes to show the coninued marginalization of anglophones by francophones even though that is not the intent of the Prof.
Secondly, Prof Nganang is not for secession, he is on the contrary a federalist which i am also. Being a federalist he cannot represent adequately the interest of those who want to break away. Thus, the person to expose the anglophone issue has to be one with an interest to secede so he can explain the problem from all angles. In other words Prof Nganang can be biased in his presentation.
On another issue, the anglophone lawyer should want a bigger platform, instead of dwelling on common law because it gives them more clients. the francophones control most of the economy in Cameroon and you cannot be wealthy by just living in SW and NW province as such i have always disagreed with the Anglophone lawyers.
I am not sure if Prof Nganang went to all the corners of NW and SW but going to all the corners of NW and SW does not make you knowledgeable of the anglophone crises. As an anglophone i have lived it and he has not, and that makes all the
