The Western obstacle to human potential and human growth that cannot be recorded as western sourced and origin is, in some respects, necessary for human growth and human potential. Otherwise, there would be no checks and balances. General - Professor D'Yanga

From a simplistic perspective—probably an emotional one—if one is a person of colour or an Indigenous person, and an intelligent person at that, it can be very easy to look at academia from a Western vantage point and regard it as a kind of newcomer: Johnny-just-come, Johnny-come-lately, the baby of the family. One might look at Western academia and think that it is a baby that refuses to acknowledge, or is simply devoid of, any serious body of data that is globally holistic and not exclusively Greco-Roman in its pronunciation, sourcing, announcement, or validation; data that does not, in rudimentary terms, validate and overvalue Western peoples and the Western way of understanding the world.

It is easy to look at it and think, yes, this is what this culture is, or this is what academia looks like from this particular perspective.

Sometimes, one might even become emotional or annoyed when one possesses what one considers to be correct, genuine knowledge that does not necessarily have to be peer-reviewed or peer-whatever. It could exist within one's culture. It could be direct knowledge. It could be inherited knowledge. It could be knowledge acquired through experience. Yet one constantly has to banter, argue, explain, defend, and encounter forces that are, in effect, arrestive of development, growth, or evolution.

I am not speaking about myself personally, because I do not approach it that way. I am speaking about what the average researcher may have to encounter.

Why do I say this?

This morning, I was thinking about it. I looked at the mainstream news. After looking through the political section and the geopolitics, I went to the science section. Everything they were talking about today, as of 14:09, 2026, as new research, new science, or new invention, were things that Indigenous people have been talking about for thousands of years.

I am talking about things ranging from string theory to parallel universes, to manipulating matter at an atomic level, to bilocation, to cloaking devices, to cloaking technology, to shape-shifting technology.

I will give an example.

When you say "shape-shifting," people roll their eyes. They think, "Oh, this is something that belongs to Western technology," or they dismiss it as fantasy or superstition. But in Yoruba culture, there is something called ojola. Ojola chambers. The chamber is like a clay pot where a man enters the pot, whatever the size, and comes out as a reptilian. The reptilian goes into the pot and turns into a human being.

Then we have Osoyin [ Primordial AI ? ). I can go on and on.

If you are devoid of this data, if you do not possess this knowledge, your illiteracy is not my problem.

Because we find that most of the things being discussed today are things that, when you presented them to people initially, they rolled their eyes. They mocked you. They discredited you. They dismissed you. But that is because they were illiterate in relation to the knowledge being presented to them; they were stupid in relation to it; they had no education in that particular body of knowledge.

And sometimes we have the misfortune—especially migrants—that when you come to another civilisation, another country, another land, your economic status drops. So, most times, the IQ of the society you are forced to deal with might be lower than what you left home with, or lower than what you yourself possess.

So the data you are presenting to people is met with laughter because they have no clue what you are talking about.

And then they may eventually understand what you are talking about, pretend that it is rubbish, and meanwhile steal your knowledge and repeat it back to you as though it were their own authorship.

So when you sometimes look at Western academia, or whatever we want to call it, and you really study history—from colonialism to whatever came before it, to the first major appearance of the Western world on the global stage, from Phoenician times to Greek times, to Zeus, to even the great philosophers of those periods—it is like that.

But this is necessary.

Why do I say this?

I changed my mind.

This is necessary.

You always need the stumbling blocks.

Because we Indigenous people, too, have cultures that have always been corrupt from day one. People have always abused the extended-family mentality. People have always abused kinship. Everything that we see today in Africa has always happened in ancient times, perhaps not always in precisely the form in which it is practised today, but the underlying behaviours have existed.

We have always had slavery. We have always had indentured servitude, or whatever terminology one chooses to use.

And that is wrong.

To me, whether it is transatlantic slavery or indentured servitude, it is all wrong. We cannot say that one is better than the other simply because the historical circumstances or terminology differ.

To make a man work for you and not pay him for one hour is, to me, the same thing as slavery.

You know how Indigenous people sometimes make excuses: "Well, the kings and the slaves could marry," or "The slaves had this privilege," or whatever else.

They were still slaves.

I come from a culture. I know my stuff.

A slave could have certain privileges. A slave could have certain relationships. A slave could even marry. But that does not change the fact that the person was still a slave.

In ancient times, when human sacrifice was required, they did not choose the locals first. They chose the slaves.

There goes my point.

So when you look at the Western part of the world, and you see that its scepticism sometimes functions as an obstacle, perhaps that obstacle is actually necessary. It can slow us down. It can force us to check ourselves. It can create balances and counterbalances.

And that is necessary for human growth.

Because we ourselves—Indigenous people—are just as capable of corruption if we are left unchecked.

That is human nature.

The problem, therefore, is not necessarily that there are obstacles to human potential. The problem is what kind of obstacle they are, why they exist, and what they are doing.

Scepticism can be necessary.

Checks and balances can be necessary.

Resistance can be necessary.

But when that scepticism is exercised out of mischief, out of malice, or out of something that I cannot yet pinpoint as a genetic factor, then the question becomes different.

I am beginning to suspect that there may be something genetic involved, because when you see the same traits appearing among people—especially sometimes among people who have no obvious geographical connection—and you see the same behaviours in a Ukrainian person, an Iranian person, or someone from somewhere else entirely, then you cannot simply overlook the point I am making.

So what is the point?

The Western obstacle to human potential and human growth that cannot be recorded as western sourced and origin is, in some respects, necessary for human growth and human potential.

Otherwise, there would be no checks and balances.

And we ourselves, Indigenous people, are just as corrupt if left unchecked.

That is human nature.