Sir: Could I reply to Dr Dudley's objection (Letters, 4
April) to my piece on Biafra? Dr Dudley quotes Dr Nmamdi Azikiwe's statement that casualties in actual fighting were larger on the 'Nigerian' side than on the 'Biafran' side. This statement of Dr Azikiwe, even if true, is not nearly as important as Dr Dudley seems to think. For example, in the American civil war the South lost fewer people in battle than did the North; but it lost far more people propor- tionately than did the North. The same is true in 'Nigeria.' The losses of the 'Biafrans' in battle have been much greater. proportionately, than have the losses of the 'Nigerians.' But, as Dr Dudley must be aware, it is not the losses in battle that are relevant in this argument. Perhaps the losses in battle are not very great on either side, by European standards: it is the losses outside battle and the future losses— what one may call the genetical losses—which are shocking the world. Losses of this kind are not being suffered by the people of Joss (Joss where my daughter spent a year and a half): what losses of this kind are the people of Lagos and of Ibadan suffering? The war that is being fought in the Nigerian state by a not very competent army is not, as far as I know, being fought by the Nigerian people, if we assume there is a Nigerian people, in the same way as it is being fought by the Ibos, to avoid another semantic discussion of what Ibo stands for.
As for the statement that there is no parallel between the former French West African 'Federation' or Ireland, this is an opinion which Dr Dudley is entitled to have, as I am entitled to have mine. But since he starts from a premise. that there is some well-established national unit called Nigeria, we are not likely to agree. Denis Brogan One Hedgerley Close, Cambridge
Previous page
