PDA

View Full Version : Nigeria: the wisdom of Disintegration [Parallel Posts]



denker
Jun 21, 2008, 12:27 PM
Meltdown In Kenya And The Need To Restructure African Countries [/URL]
[URL="http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=8427&itemid=55"] (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=8427) Written by Ozodi Thomas Osuji Thursday, 31 January 2008

Kenya, like other African countries put together by European powers to serve their interests, is composed of many ethnic groups. Kenya, like those African countries, strictly speaking is not a nation-state. Kenya, like many African countries, is an artificial conglomeration of disparate tribes put together for the convenience of European powers.

The Europeans are tentatively gone from their African colonies but instead of Africans transforming their inherited artificial countries into real countries they pretend that as they are that they are countries! They are not countries and it is time someone told the apparent fools pretending to govern African countries that they are not governing countries and that it is time they transformed the so-called countries they inherited from Europe into real nation-states.

African leaders pretend that they have countries that they are governing; they are fools for these countries are not put together by Africans and for there to be real African countries Africans themselves ought to put them together. You can not overseer what some one else put together for his own interest, not your interest and pretend that what you are doing is right.

Only God knows how long it would take African leaders to understand the simple fact that they need to restructure the so-called countries they inherited from Europeans and transform them into real countries rather than pretend that they have countries.

Perhaps, Africans are really unintelligent, as some non-Africans claim? If by now they have not recognized the need to restructure their countries and make them realistic to the African tribal reality then they are, as reported, unintelligent. If they are unintelligent then the rest of the world ought to write them off. But if what we have here is laziness and ignorance, then let the international community, those who understand human nature and governance, come and help Africans.

If All Africans can do fifty years after their so-called independence is sit idly and not do anything to transform their countries into real countries they are fools and do not deserve to be in government.
We already know that no African country, so far, has shown a knack for economic development and if additionally they lack the ability to govern themselves then Africans ought to be transformed into slaves and used by Europeans and or Asians to extract the mineral wealth of Africa for the good of Europeans and Asians.

My God, how much intelligence does it take to realize what needs to be done in Africa and do it? I have practically stood on my head talking about restructuring African countries and yet no African country has taken steps in this direction. Like drunken fools they keep doing the same old things that always bring them ethnic cleansing, as is currently going on in Kenya.
If Africa is not restructured, what is going on in Kenya is only a dress rehearsal of what would come to pass in most African countries, especially the multiethnic ones like Nigeria and Congo.

Nigeria’s so-called leaders, like brain-dead apes have refused to read the hand writing on the wall and see what is in the cards for their so-called country. It is only a matter of time before that artificial country implodes and explodes and refugees are spilled all over West Africa with destabilizing effects in that region.

What does it take for Africans to recognize what needs to be done and do it? Are Africans really unintelligent, as racist whites say, and as such cannot rule themselves? My God, Africans are the most exasperating people on this planet.
If Africans were intelligent, by now they would have restructured their countries into tribe based countries hence make them politically stable and political stability is a prerequisite condition for economic development to take place in Africa.

For as long as I can remember, Africans have talked and talked about the fact that European powers dumped different African tribes into the same countries. They have moaned about this issue forever yet have done nothing to solve the problem.
If Africans fail to restructure their artificial countries within a decade I am calling for the United Nations to take over and do the necessary restructuring of Africa. Failing to do so, we shall interminably be confronted with political meltdowns and ethnic cleansing, as we see going on in today’s Kenya.

It is about time some one did the right thing in Africa, if only to show that actual human begins, not monkeys are ruling the place.

THE TRIBES OF KENYA AND GOVERNANCE IN KENYA

The main groups in Kenya are Kikuyi, Meru, Kalenjin, Luyha, Luo, Ksisii, Kamba, Swahili, Masai and Turkana. Compare to Nigeria and Congo Democratic Republic. The main groups in Nigeria are Hausa and Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw, Kanuri, Ibibio, and Tiv. The main ethnic groups in Congo Democratic Republic are Mongo, Luba, Kongo and the Mangbetu-Azande. There are hundreds of other ethnic groups in these countries. Both Nigeria and Congo reportedly have over two hundred ethnic groups in each.

For our present purposes, the salient point is that Kenya, like many African countries, has many ethnic groups. Kenya, like many African countries, did not evolve into a country through internal historical processes, instead, a foreign power, Britain, arbitrarily lumped diverse tribes living in the area now called Kenya together and called the ensuing geographical entity Kenya. Other than the name, Kenya, the country is not a real nation-state.

The different ethnic groups in Kenya do not consider themselves related and certainly do not believe that they have many things in common with others. The same is the case in other African countries.
African countries are artificial political constructs constructed by European powers and are not nations. A nation, scholars in International Politics tell us, is a people who have a shared history, who have undergone shared events that gave them a sense of being one people. Most African countries are less than one hundred years old and that is not enough time for their diverse people to develop a sense of one people. This is a fact that so-called African leaders have failed to grasp and deal with.

There are no such things as natural African countries, such as France, England and Germany. What exist in Africa are artificial political expressions.
These artificial political constructs can be reconstructed into real nation-states. It is here that political intelligence is required and either intelligent Africans emerge to do it or if Africans are unintelligent external others should do it for them. The United Nations should give Africa a decade to restructure itself and failing which should go in and do it from outside.

We constantly witness members of some African tribes killing others; they do so because they do not identify with those other tribes.
Here is one causal factor in Africans frequent mutual mayhems. Upon so-called independence, a tribe favored by the departing European power is handed the reigns of power (in the case of Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta and his Kikuyu tribesmen) and it deludes itself into thinking that it now has a country to rule. A country to rule indeed; how can you rule a country whose many tribes you did not put together?

Members of the ruling tribe generally proceed on the false belief that they are the rulers of their artificial country and pretty much do as they like; they ride roughshod over other tribes and those resent them and the result is inter ethnic conflicts.

In Nigeria the Hausa-Fulani were favored by the British and given political power and the other Nigerian tribes resented the rule of the Hausa-Fulanis and the result was the Nigerian civil war (1967-70) and the coming mother of all civil wars that is about to break out in Nigeria. (If another election is rigged and *****s are imposed on Nigeria as its leaders, despite their known cowardice, their fear of death that disposes them to accept imposters ruling them, Nigerians will eventual rebel and the artificial construct called Nigeria would fall apart and the consequences would be drastic for all West Africa. At present certain ethnic groups, especially the Hausas and Fulanis collude with the Yorubas and essentially cart revenue from Niger Delta, Ijaw, oil resources to their parts of the country and the Ijaw seethe in anger and no one takes their anger seriously. Sooner or later, the lid would blow off and the underlying anger at the exploiters of the rest of Nigeria would boil over and the result is another failed African state.)

In Congo so-called Democratic Republic the situation is pretty much the same as in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa. A few favored tribes exploit the great wealth of that minerals rich country and the rest of the tribes feel exploited and the result is the interminable civil war going on in that so-called country. Many more people have been killed or maimed or raped in that unfortunate country than was done in all the years that King Leopold of Belgium put it together as his rubber plantation.

In Kenya the Kikuyu and its allies have ruled the country since its independence and the major tribes seethe in anger and the result is the current mayhem we see going on in Kenya. The election was rigged and Kibaki, a Kikuyu, rules. This rigging is the final straw that broke the camel’s back. The Luo (and its losing presidential candidate, Mr. Odinger) and other ethnic groups say enough is enough and have taken matters into their hands. The ethnic minorities are ethnically cleansing the Kikuyu living in their parts of the country. If the Kikuyu join in the ethnic cleansing business and kill Luo living in their area, which includes the capital city of Nairobi, we shall have another Rwanda in our hands!

African countries would always go through intermittent mutual killings unless they are restructured and each tribe is given relative autonomy. We saw what took place in Rwanda where the majority Hutu got fed up been ruled by the minority Tutsi and went on a rampage killing Tutsis. That problem has not been solved for at present the Tutsis are still ruling the Hutus. Obviously, that situation cannot last forever unless the Tutsis are totally unintelligent and hence believe that a small group can rule those larger than them forever. (But one cannot get it pass the Tutsis; one can see them believe in the nonsense that the can rule others forever and ever and not arouse resentment. So far in their unenviable history on this planet Africans have not shown any spark of excellence in any sphere of human endeavor, certainly not in governance.)

The Luo of Kenya and other ethnic groups have had enough of Kikuyu domination and are now rebelling. The solution to the Kenya issue, which is the solution to the ethnic problem in most African countries, is to restructure the country. Each ethnic group in Kenya must be made a state. Each state must have relative autonomy to rule itself while delegating certain powers to the central government.

In several writings, I wrote about this federal structure for African countries. Let me briefly summarize what, elsewhere, I wrote in detail.
Kenya, Nigeria, Congo and all African countries should be restructured. Each group that has a distinct language should be made a state. Each state should rule itself but do so within a federation comprising other ethnic groups. There are ten large groups in Kenya. Each of these ethnic groups should be a state. The smaller groups should be lumped into two additional states for a total of twelve states in Kenya.
The same should be done in Congo, Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa where there are many ethnic groups.

Nigeria has ten major ethnic groups and many small ones. Nigeria should have ten states; each composed of one of the major ethic groups. The smaller ethnic groups should be lumped into five additional states for a total of fifteen states in Nigeria.

Each state is further broken into districts (aka counties, local government areas). Each district should be an identified sub-group, say, those who speak a dialect of the same language that constitute a state.
Finally, each district should be divided into towns.

Each level of governance: town, district and state should have a unitary form of government, and a unicameral legislature: a state legislature of no more than fifty members, a district council of no more than eleven members and a town council of no more than seven members. The legislature makes laws. An executive is elected to implement the laws: town mayor, district administrator and state governor. An independent judiciary is established to adjudicate the laws: town magistrate court, district court and state court of appeal.

Each tribe must be responsible for its economic development. Each tribe must have one hundred percent control over its resources, all of it. However, citizens from each tribe must pay tax to run the central governments. Each citizen should expect to pay, at least, twenty percent of his annual income to federal tax. States need revenue to operate and ought to tax properties and businesses, sales tax etc but have no individual income taxes.

The central government should be in charge of the military and external affairs. The central government should have a national unicameral legislature of no more than three hundred members, members elected to serve five years with a five term limit; a national president elected to serve five years with two terms limit and an independent judiciary (Supreme court of no more than thirteen members, one of whom is the chief justice, federal appeals courts and federal district courts).

The constitution of the United States of America is a useful model, except that in the case of Africa states ought to be comprised of identified tribes.
The idea behind this summarized constitution for African countries is to give each tribe relative autonomy while having a national government that coordinates the affairs of the entire country. Clearly, each African tribe is too small to go it alone and needs other tribes’ cooperation to make a go of it; no tribe should be subjugated to other tribe’s everlasting domination.

How difficult is this realistic political structure for Africans to comprehend? Are Africans born dense and cannot figure out the right thing by themselves and do it and need external others to tell them what to do?
Or is it the case that Africans are born criminals, antisocial personalities, as some racist folk suspect, and would rather have their present political system, chaotic as they are, that allows them to satisfy their thieving tendencies (such as allows Nigerians of non-Ijaw tribe to keep stealing Ijaw oil resources).

What would it take for Africans, for once in their dumb history, to do the right thing rather than always do the wrong things. We sit by and watch these countries descend into anarchy and the people suffer and die and we feel pity for them and seek ways to give them handouts (monetary aid that their thieving leaders would redirect to their personal pockets).

We see what is going on in Kenya; that country has descended into anarchy and if the international community stands idly by would become another failed African state. Yet there are pretended rulers at Nairobi.
One does not understand what so-called African leaders are doing for their countries. I suppose that they seek political offices to position themselves to gratify their antisocial cravings, their desires to steal from the public treasury, take bribes from those they award government contracts to and look aside as shoddy contract deliveries are produced.

God, Africans are the most frustrating people on this blue earth. How come they cannot for once in their unenviable history do what is admirable? Should they always do the wrong thing?
Are Africans not human beings, too? May be they are lower level animals and we take them as human beings? May be we are the ones with a problem in seeing them as human beings hence capable of governing themselves?

James Watson recently said that he doubts that given Africans low intelligence that they could manage their political affairs and he was driven off the stage for saying what is in many folk’s minds. Okay, Mr. Watson is probably a racist, but why can’t Africans disprove him by doing the right thing, restructuring their countries and running them well?

No African country, in fact, no black led country, so far, in human history has governed itself well. (Some African nationalists take pride in ancient Egypt and cite it as an instance of Africans doing the right thing. Were ancient Egyptians black folk? The jury is still out on that subject. At any rate, what some folk did four thousand years ago does not mean a damn thing today.)

So far members of the black race have done only one thing well: blame other folks for their fallen house. Africans are always on the look out for someone to blame for their problems. They blame Europeans for all that is wrong with Africa but do little to improve Africa.

Place Africans in political positions and all they do is sit on their buttocks and do nothing; perhaps, they figure out ways to steal from their people.
Africans forget that if you point two accusatory fingers at others three point right back at you telling you that though other people do contribute to your problem that in the final analysis that it is up to you to solve it. Europeans, of course, have contributed to Africa’s problems but it is up to Africans to solve their problems. No external others would solve Africans problems for them.

In case they have forgotten, let us remind Africans that it is childish to always blame other people for ones problems. It is children who feel powerless that find it necessary to always blame other people, adults, for their issues.

Adults accept that in the real world every person affects every person else. We live in a general systems environment where all affect all for good or bad. All that one can do is solve ones problems even if they were caused by other persons.

Yes, the West affected Africans but it is for Africans to solve their problems. Europeans bought African slaves. Arabs bought African slaves. These caused problems for Africans. But before we get carried away pitying exploited Africans we must remember that it is Africans themselves who sold their people to Arabs and Europeans hence are every bit culprit as those they sold their people to. It takes two to tango.
There are no innocent persons in this world. Instead of moaning about what other people did to Africans, Africans can take their lives into their own hands and do what is good for them.

As indicated above, Africans must restructure their countries. After that first order of business Africans must get down to doing what would economically develop their backward continent, giving all Africans free education up to university level, industrializing their god forsaken continent.

Africans can do what China and India are currently doing if only they put their hitherto unproductive minds to work.
Africans and Kenyans can prevent the continent from melting down into chaos by doing the things suggested here. To ignore doing these things is like being the proverbial ostrich and hide ones head in sand. It is time Africans, like men, looked their problems in the face and tackled them, realistically.

Ozodi Thomas Osuji
January 31, 2008
ozodiosuji@gmail.com


Eja, the possibility of deputative debate may arise, on my side to engage you with all force, when i know what is/are your thought/s about the treatise in the quote...au revoir!

nero africanus
Jun 21, 2008, 12:51 PM
Eja,

I do not believe in disintegration and separation into component republics but this debate you have chosen is a hard sell. i believe that access to large markets can make or break a nation , a large domestic market , cornered by a nation state is the first step to success, also once the human productive power of a nation state is harnessed, you cannot compete with it unless you have equivalent resources (eg china). this is why the scandinavian countries even though they have a standard of living higher than that of the US can never match them.

I do not want to debate you for I lack the conviction to. However what I want to do is to raise questions and concerns for you to address in your opening postulates . In this way, the debate will be more robust in that who ever will debate you will focus on these solid issues in addition to extra ammo he/she will bring .

1. is there are possibility that the existence of Nigeria as it is today is simply based on parasitism or petro -patriotism
2. Multiethnic states where one ethnicity does not dominate are always known to fail. Examples are the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Yugoslavia, Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Sudan, the Basques in Spain, the constitutional impasse in Belgium which went on for almost 2 months without a government.
3. the role of culture in nationhood and nation building, where peoples of varying culture exists in a country , there is a huge potential for conflict
4. Smaller states are easier to manage and most of the recent successes are small states rather than big states.
5. Cultural homogeneity formed the basis of the most stable states from the earliest times. It is cultural homogeneity that enables the Yoruba of Nigeria as Christians and Muslims to live side by side without issues, however can the Igbo and the Hausa –Fulani really live together given the huge differences in culture, political ideology, social organization, religion, culture, and world view?

6. What is it exactly that Nigerians have in common that will enable the Efik man and the mumuye man to live in one country? What is the basis of nationhood?

7. In cases where from the earliest times, the minorities have complained of domination and marginalization, is the answer the indissoluble Nigeria?

8. Why is a loose confederation of ethnic nationalities an anathema? Isn’t it possible to devolve rule and power to the extent that the ethnic nations have all the power that they need , while the collective keep the ones they don’t need , like self defence, border integrity , monetary policy and foreign policy

9. Obugi once said that the success or failure of a state depends on the successful possession and application of one ideology, and world view. This means that that Nigeria which is a cacophony of voices and world views is bound to fail. Another writer once said that Africa will remain backward till it resolves the problem of the multiethnic nature of its societies. In other words nations states are not meant to be multiethnic. Do these writers have a point?

omaks
Jun 21, 2008, 06:06 PM
I would like to debate with one (or several) of the loudest advocates on NVS for the splitting up of Nigeria along ethnic lines.

My main argument will involve showing how the single-minded pursuit of this aim would be the greatest strategic mistake our people could make at this time.

While I do agree that the present arrangement is far from ideal, I also believe that an uncompromising urge to divide Nigeria up into contiguous sovereign countries makes no sense within current global realities.

I am also prepared to defend the prediction that should this aim be pursued in all seriousness by the most influential stakeholders in our communities, at the end of it (most probably several generations from when it is embarked upon), the geo-political morsels that will result from the disintegration of Nigeria will be economic basket-cases and playthings/feeding grounds for non-Nigerian entities.

I am also prepared to argue that by proposing the disintegration of the union of the African peoples currently known as Nigerians as being the only solution to the presently faulty union, the advocates for this disintegration are working consciously (or unconsciously) for the same interests that have being preying on African miseries for several centuries now.

There are other much more efficacious solutions and they do not necessitate the transformation of current Nigerian geographical space into several sovereign countries.

I'd like to see you go one on one with my very good friend (eh eh!!) Son of the Delta, that is if he is up to the challenge. What do you say? I must also state here that i am in total agreement with your viewpoint on this one.

omaks
Jun 21, 2008, 08:35 PM
Eja,

I do not believe in disintegration and separation into component republics but this debate you have chosen is a hard sell. i believe that access to large markets can make or break a nation , a large domestic market , cornered by a nation state is the first step to success, also once the human productive power of a nation state is harnessed, you cannot compete with it unless you have equivalent resources (eg china). this is why the scandinavian countries even though they have a standard of living higher than that of the US can never match them.

I do not want to debate you for I lack the conviction to. However what I want to do is to raise questions and concerns for you to address in your opening postulates . In this way, the debate will be more robust in that who ever will debate you will focus on these solid issues in addition to extra ammo he/she will bring .

1. is there are possibility that the existence of Nigeria as it is today is simply based on parasitism or petro -patriotism
2. Multiethnic states where one ethnicity does not dominate are always known to fail. Examples are the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Yugoslavia, Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Sudan, the Basques in Spain, the constitutional impasse in Belgium which went on for almost 2 months without a government.
3. the role of culture in nationhood and nation building, where peoples of varying culture exists in a country , there is a huge potential for conflict
4. Smaller states are easier to manage and most of the recent successes are small states rather than big states.
5. Cultural homogeneity formed the basis of the most stable states from the earliest times. It is cultural homogeneity that enables the Yoruba of Nigeria as Christians and Muslims to live side by side without issues, however can the Igbo and the Hausa –Fulani really live together given the huge differences in culture, political ideology, social organization, religion, culture, and world view?

6. What is it exactly that Nigerians have in common that will enable the Efik man and the mumuye man to live in one country? What is the basis of nationhood?

7. In cases where from the earliest times, the minorities have complained of domination and marginalization, is the answer the indissoluble Nigeria?

8. Why is a loose confederation of ethnic nationalities an anathema? Isn't it possible to devolve rule and power to the extent that the ethnic nations have all the power that they need , while the collective keep the ones they don't need , like self defence, border integrity , monetary policy and foreign policy

9. Obugi once said that the success or failure of a state depends on the successful possession and application of one ideology, and world view. This means that that Nigeria which is a cacophony of voices and world views is bound to fail. Another writer once said that Africa will remain backward till it resolves the problem of the multiethnic nature of its societies. In other words nations states are not meant to be multiethnic. Do these writers have a point?

My very good friend nero, much as i would like to agree with some of the contents of your post i just could not help but differ. herin lies my difference of opinion below;

Question 1: The existence of Nigeria as it is today is not necessarily based on 'Parasitism or Petro - Parasitism' as you stated. Rather, it is based essentially on age - old distrust amongst the various component ethnic tribes that make up our country Nigeria. A distrust that is continuously being promoted by many of the 'political fleas and leeches' across the whole ethnic combine who are the direct beneficiaries of the 'spoils of war' derived from the perpetual distrust. The ordinary man on the street is not very interested whether the next man beside him is Igbo Hausa or Yoruba in the interim, but where those community leaders continue to sow the seeds of confusion and discord it is not surprising that ordinary Nigerians across the ethnic divide lend themselves in support of these distabilising leaders. That is the real bane of our unity in Nigeria.

Question 2:When you consider the fact that 200 different languages approximately are being spoken in nigeria, and that there are many other ethnic groupings aside from the three 'well - known' ones, we will foever continue to divide Nigeria as It currently is. The agitation for separation will never end, even within the Igoc communities, the Hausa/Fulani communities and indeed within the Yoruba communities, essentially due to the variant language and cultural disparities. I don't see how in the long run this can benefit anyone, excaept for us all to appreciate each other' unique qualities and treat one and as equals/ and same.

Question 3: How small do these ethnic variants need to be to become sufficiently managable? That is the real connundrum. as stated above, the agitation for self determination will continue unabated.

Because of time constraint i will attend to some of the other issues in due course, but the simple reality is that inspite of the many imperfections bedevilling our Country, there is room for improvement. Instead of all this war mongering and clamour for disintegration, why can we not muster that energy towards unifying our country?

Ishola Taiwo
Jun 22, 2008, 03:06 PM
Thanks for all the responses.

Denker, from what I picked up, the article by Dr Osuji is not calling for disintegration. Rather, he is talking about the need for African countries to be restructured.

Now, if you wish to argue in favour of splitting Nigeria up into independent sovereign countries, you will need a lot more than an essay that merely speaks of restructuring.

Nero, I wish to save my ammunition for whoever from the ranks of the "Split up Nigeria" brigade is confident enough to take up my challenge. So, please excuse me for not answering your questions at this time.

And I wait on any from the several Villagers who assail us daily with cries for the disintegration of Nigeria to step forward and accept this challenge.

busanga
Jun 22, 2008, 04:11 PM
Eja am with you all the way. Indeed, add your salient points to the fact that the basic problems Nigeria faces today which are poor leadership, corruption and citizens with next to know sense of patriotism or investment in the common good is unlikely to be resolved by a break up. Will a break up of Nigeria suddenly make the police man stop demanding bribe, or the messenger in the civil service start coming to work early and delivering on his promises to his employer? Me think not. Will 419 disappear? Or will political gangsterism and the win by all cost mentality be a thing of the past? NO. The problem with Nigeria is not that it is in a union, the problem is that it has abandoned the premise upon which this union was originally based. Structural problems as some put it. There is nothing wrong with Nigeria- which is a living organism of 120 million plus people that undoubtedly have developed some ugly, bad and also good attributes over the past 100 years that will get solved by separation. The problems will only manifest and multiply itself in the different resulting entities.

The truth also is that we won't stop being neighbors either as one or many. We ultimately must still learn to live with one another- and separation cannot solve that one either. What good will additional 6 or 12 or 30 or 36 or even 60 countries (who is to stop my local government from declaring independence?) do to the misery of Africa's pauperized fiefdoms of 50 plus states that are a shame of our race? We should get our house in order instead of engaging on wild posturing.

DeepThought
Jun 23, 2008, 03:49 AM
Eja,
For progressive and peaceful co-existence , my own take is that voluntary restructuring that truely allows the various ethnic nationalities and disparate people of Nigeria to take most control of their various destinies and resources should be the ultimate goal of Nigeria.

What I'm trying to say is that folly or not, if for some reason we refuse to voluntarily restructure Nigeria, chaotic or not, disintegration cannot be ruled out In fact disintegration will be the only other option or consequence .

Wayfarer
Jun 23, 2008, 04:54 AM
Eja,

Thanks for starting this debate. I have some questions for the people on both sides of the secession debate.

Eja, if you believe Nigeria should remain intact, how would you rectify the situation we have in the Nigerian army whereby many soldiers operating in the Niger Delta are non indigens of the Delta. Is it right that people who are not indigens of a region should be entrusted with the use of deadly force in quelling disturbances by indigens of said region?


And to those who support seccession, are you confident that the borders you have drawn will be acceptable to all concerned? Are you sure these borders will not provoke accusations of land theft and resources grab? How will we determine where tribe A's territory ends and tribe B's begin? Would we iddentify the last houses in each tribe's territory and draw the boundary midway between these houses perharps?

Just some questions I have.

denker
Jun 23, 2008, 07:13 AM
Why we must Confederate African Countries
Saturday, 10 September 2005

Human beings are ratiocinative creatures. It, therefore, confounds one that they see problems and ignore them until they explode in their faces. This is a tragic flaw in the human character. They fail to take proactive and affirmative actions to address problems that are so palpable that one could literally touch them.

African countries are problematic countries. They are artificial social constructs. None of them is an organic community. They are all artificial entities put together by European colonial powers. Those powers constructed these countries for their own good. The motivations and behaviors of Europeans are understandable.

It is not for other persons to do what is good for one, but what is good for them. Europeans had a right to construct African countries that served their interests. It was in their interests for African countries to be weak. You make your enemy weak so as to better control him.

What is not understandable is why Africans have not reconstructed their countries so as to serve their African interests. Instead, they merely complain about what Europe did wrong in constructing the countries they inherited from Europe. Why not stop complaining and fix the problems you see? What are Africans, children or adults? Children see problems and complain about them. Adults accept the problems that existence gives them and solve them, or, at least, struggle to solve them.

Those who struggle to solve their problems develop a feeling of empowerment; those who refuse to address their issues feel depowered.

Instead of bellyaching about what Europeans did wrong, Africans ought to correct the mistakes they perceive in Africa. African countries are like powder kegs waiting for someone to light a fuse on them and they explode. When any of them explodes, people are killed and the international community wrings its hands in wonder, asking why Africans cannot seem to do anything right; why can’t they seem to govern themselves well?

There have been ethnic cleansings in Nigeria, Liberia, Sierra Leon, Ivory Coast, Congo, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda and in other African countries. We shall continue having these problems until we decide to behave rationally and call for a conference, pretty much like the 1884 Berlin Conference that fixed Africa’s current boundaries, and reconfigure African countries, this time, on a realistic footing that would no longer generate future conflicts.

continue here ===>>> (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/ozodi-thomas-osuji/why-we-must-confederate-african-coun.html)


Why Africans deny Responsibility for their actions
Written by Ozodi Thomas Osuji
Monday, 13 November 2006

WHY PEOPLE DENY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR NEGATIVE ACTIONS


Ozodi Thomas Osuji


You probably have noticed that some human beings tend to want to avoid taking responsibility for their negative actions. When they seem to fail, make mistakes and or are poor they tend to seek some one to blame for their fate. They seek scapegoats for their “misfortunes”. Why this behavior?

To take responsibility for ones failures and for ones mistakes is to feel less than perfect, for if one were perfect one would not make mistakes. Only the imperfect make mistakes.

Some human beings do not want to make mistakes and seem incompetent; they want to seem perfect and competent at all times. They want to seem like they know it all, even when they do not know what they are talking about.

If we are perfect, do not make mistakes and are always competent then we are godlike. Only God does not make mistakes.

To make mistakes is to have a depressed view of ones self. To accept that one is prone to making mistakes is to risk depression, a painful mental state.

Folks deny responsibility for their mistakes and failures because they do not want to be depressed. (In clinical depression, the individual feels low self esteem, loses interests in the activities of daily living: does not have interest in work, sports, social relationships and personal grooming; some may even have suicidal ideation and some engage in self mutilation. However, we are not talking about clinical depression needing anti depressant medications; we are talking about sad feeling from accepting responsibility for ones mistakes.)

Those who deny responsibility for their mistakes and find other people to blame for them tend to avoid depression; unfortunately, they tend to become paranoid. The paranoid person always blames his problems on other people. (In clinical paranoia, aka delusion disorder, the individual is grandiose, sees himself as superior to other people, even if he has the IQ of a *****, believes that because he is so important that other people are out to kill or harm him…he may seek police protection and hide from people and write with a false name, all in an effort to protect his fancied important life; he generally has ideas of persecution and grandeur; he tends to fear been demeaned, belittled, degraded, disgraced, criticized etc. He is always quarrelling with those he thinks are demeaning him, those that do not see him as the god he wants to be seen as. We are not talking about clinical paranoia requiring medical treatment; we are talking about phenomenological paranoia found in most human beings; only the unique human being does not have some paranoid traits.)

continue here ===>>> (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/ozodi-thomas-osuji/why-africans-deny-responsibility-for-their-ac-2.html)

Eja,...if you wouldn't mind allow me access into your thought/s about the two thesis up there in quotes....also your thought/s on dis:This Nigeria will never be a nation!:D (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/crucible/44096-nigeria-will-never-nation.html)

....Eja, i would love to debate once you reveal your thoughts....am waiting!:biggrin:
PS: take time to read everything...do not hustle..we have time...au revoir!:cool:

Myne Whitman
Jun 23, 2008, 10:37 AM
Eja,

This is a good debate topic.

Where is Bode with his blueprint? Tonsoyo, Tony, Ttonjo, Docokwy, et al?

Disintegration is definitely not the only option and there is need to be open minded to other solutions to the current impasse which may be more efficient all told. So apart from your quote below, I think I agree with the rest of your submissions.


I am also prepared to defend the prediction that should this aim be pursued in all seriousness by the most influential stakeholders in our communities, at the end of it (most probably several generations from when it is embarked upon), the geo-political morsels that will result from the disintegration of Nigeria will be economic basket-cases and playthings/feeding grounds for non-Nigerian entities.

Given the way the world works now, disintegration could be a strategic bad hand to play, but only if not handled properly. Even so, with the right combination of effective leadership skills, technocracy and good followership, 'at the end of it' some of the resulting entities may be far from what you describe...

Chief Kalu
Jun 23, 2008, 11:36 AM
I would like to debate with one (or several) of the loudest advocates on NVS for the splitting up of Nigeria along ethnic lines.

My main argument will involve showing how the single-minded pursuit of this aim would be the greatest strategic mistake our people could make at this time.

While I do agree that the present arrangement is far from ideal, I also believe that an uncompromising urge to divide Nigeria up into contiguous sovereign countries makes no sense within current global realities.

I am also prepared to defend the prediction that should this aim be pursued in all seriousness by the most influential stakeholders in our communities, at the end of it (most probably several generations from when it is embarked upon), the geo-political morsels that will result from the disintegration of Nigeria will be economic basket-cases and playthings/feeding grounds for non-Nigerian entities.

I am also prepared to argue that by proposing the disintegration of the union of the African peoples currently known as Nigerians as being the only solution to the presently faulty union, the advocates for this disintegration are working consciously (or unconsciously) for the same interests that have being preying on African miseries for several centuries now.

There are other much more efficacious solutions and they do not necessitate the transformation of current Nigerian geographical space into several sovereign countries.

Eja,
I am happy that you have put up this challenge. Let those who will not let us rest with Niger Delta and massob come and debate.
I have never seen dividing the country as a solution to our problems. I have always thought that a conference, wholistic in nature can solve issues.
Our crop of leaders may not be trusted to lead any section or nationality to any promised land whatsoever. Greed and corruption has been so engrained in the psyche of the average politician that it cuts across all boundries whatsoever. I will be on the watch concerning how the debate unfolds. But do count me on your side this time around.

omaks
Jun 23, 2008, 05:49 PM
I am loving this thread immensely, not because those against the disintegration are overshadowing those in support, but because of the simple fact that they have not the courage to come to this 'arena' to defend their viewpoint. I have names in mind, but i have not as yet seen them take up the challenge. That must surely count for something.:D:D:D

busanga
Jun 23, 2008, 05:52 PM
@Oma..there is a reason why they won't come here to defend their stand. It is because it is mostly based on unproven emotions. When stood against logic, it crumbles! More so, they are busy fighting themselves on various threads on NVS- the same remarkable fight that will mark their various fiedoms if they eventually get their wish. God forbid!

But we can definitely not keep saying God forbid! Because the longer it takes for Nigeria to fix herself, the more likely the wishes of her enemies will come to pass. That is why restructining of that country's political structure is very essential. It is a goal that can be achieved if only we keep our eyes on the ball and demand it. Restructuring to me means a return to the Independence constitution which is the only legitimately negotiated document for the union of the country. It is a return to square one, and from there we can work modifications to fit the 21st century.


And for those who are bent on proving that they will do better being outside of the Nigerian framework, why don't you prove it first on your local government and state level where a substantial amount of revenue outflows go today? What will change?

Ishola Taiwo
Jun 23, 2008, 07:25 PM
continue here ===>>> (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/ozodi-thomas-osuji/why-we-must-confederate-african-coun.html)



continue here ===>>> (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/ozodi-thomas-osuji/why-africans-deny-responsibility-for-their-ac-2.html)

Eja,...if you wouldn't mind allow me access into your thought/s about the two thesis up there in quotes....also your thought/s on dis:This Nigeria will never be a nation!:D (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/crucible/44096-nigeria-will-never-nation.html)

....Eja, i would love to debate once you reveal your thoughts....am waiting!:biggrin:
PS: take time to read everything...do not hustle..we have time...au revoir!:cool:

Denker, going by the tenor of the articles you have provided, I am not sure what the basis of your opposition will be.

Everything shown by you so far only speaks of the need to restructure. My buroda, if you read my opening post again, you will see that the ones I am targeting here are those who love to speak on the urgent necessity for Nigeria to disintegrate into sovereign countries (abi na bantustans?).

Anyway, since it seems you are unwilling to accept the challenge formally without first knowing what I have in my arsenal, I will start preparing my first submission for this debate. You will know my thoughts and if you are still convinced that disintegration is the only/best solution (as we have been told several times on this NVS), then I hope you (or any from the normally vociferous Splitter Brigade) will step into the arena...auf Weidersehen Herr Kapitan...:wink:

Petojee
Jun 24, 2008, 10:03 AM
We need a strong united and fair one nigeria

omaks
Jun 24, 2008, 10:29 AM
We need a strong united and fair one nigeria


Without a shadow of a doubt, petojee. 'A house divided against itself shall never stand'.

NoLongThing
Jun 24, 2008, 01:44 PM
Eja, I am not too sure what exactly your point is by opening this thread but I do think that Nigeria in it's present state cannot stand the test of longivity, it surely must be re-structured. Let's empower the individual and therefore the separate entities in such a way that people are able to control their own resources and therefore their destinies to the best of their abilities.

A system similar to that which operates in Switzerland is one which appeals to me greatly - ie a Federal Government whose focus is on general issues such as foreign affairs, defense and perhaps immigration. Let other development issues such as education, resource control, finance, health, transportation be left to the separate entities that would develop as a result. A confederacy of states, not a unitary or a federal system of government is what I believe that Nigeria needs. The present one system fits all, that we have been adopting, is sure to fail.

Ishola Taiwo
Jun 24, 2008, 03:21 PM
Eja, I am not too sure what exactly your point is by opening this thread

I opened this thread to challenge those who have been consistently screaming that the dissolution of Nigeria is the only solution to our problems. Simple. If you are capable of seeing the detrimental hollowness that is at the core of what they are peddling, then I cannot understand how you fail to see the need to confront them in a place like the Crucible.

NVS is a "Marketplace of Ideas" yes. But answer this question: what kind of market allows poison to be openly sold without challenge?

NextLevel
Jun 24, 2008, 05:36 PM
I opened this thread to challenge those who have been consistently screaming that the dissolution of Nigeria is the only solution to our problems. Simple. If you are capable of seeing the detrimental hollowness that is at the core of what they are peddling, then I cannot understand how you fail to see the need to confront them in a place like the Crucible.

NVS is a "Marketplace of Ideas" yes. But answer this question: what kind of market allows poison to be openly sold without challenge?

I will debate you. However, before doing so, let me make some important points.

My biggest problem with your attitude towards this debate is your characterization of the position of people who want Nigeria dissolved. The idea has many manifestations, and when you refuse to characterize people who want some restructuring of Nigeria along ethnic lines with those who want Nigeria dissolved, then you are making those who want dissolution sound like fanatics with a singular goal. If you want to debate one of those people, go ahead, but even as I accept this debate, I am not one of them.

My second problem: I do not know how to argue singlemindedly. So if I see a point of yours that I agree with, I will say so. However, do not take this as some sign that I do not hold the position that Nigeria's center must be weakened in a way that allows for some recognition of how merging disparate ethnicities hold us back.

With that said, set up your argument, make your case, and take the gloves off!

busanga
Jun 24, 2008, 05:49 PM
I opened this thread to challenge those who have been consistently screaming that the dissolution of Nigeria is the only solution to our problems. Simple. If you are capable of seeing the detrimental hollowness that is at the core of what they are peddling, then I cannot understand how you fail to see the need to confront them in a place like the Crucible.

NVS is a "Marketplace of Ideas" yes. But answer this question: what kind of market allows poison to be openly sold without challenge?

And do you notice that none of the ethnic jingoists is here to debate you? :)

Ishola Taiwo
Jun 24, 2008, 06:07 PM
I will debate you. However, before doing so, let me make some important points.

My biggest problem with your attitude towards this debate is your characterization of the position of people who want Nigeria dissolved. The idea has many manifestations, and when you refuse to characterize people who want some restructuring of Nigeria along ethnic lines with those who want Nigeria dissolved, then you are making those who want dissolution sound like fanatics with a singular goal. If you want to debate one of those people, go ahead, but even as I accept this debate, I am not one of them.

My second problem: I do not know how to argue singlemindedly. So if I see a point of yours that I agree with, I will say so. However, do not take this as some sign that I do not hold the position that Nigeria's center must be weakened in a way that allows for some recognition of how merging disparate ethnicities hold us back.

With that said, set up your argument, make your case, and take the gloves off!

NextLevel, from the section that I have bolded above, it seems that you are also one who thinks that Nigeria should be re-structured. Well, you will note that my challenge is to those who want Nigeria disintegrated...in other words, those who want Nigeria put asunder irrevocably (with everyman afterwards a citizen of his own ethnically uniform republic/kingdom).

And yes, I will include those who keep talking about this mythical Southern Nigeria in that description.

I am not arguing against a need for re-structuring. Let me state that again.

I said right from the start that there are other options...there are several options all together and dissolution is the worst...yet, we have people here who do not hesitate at the slightest opportunity to cry wistfully after some bogus Oodua republic, Biafra, or 'Southern Nigeria'. I would like one of them to engage in a debate...leave aside the pre-cooked repetitious and empty rhetorics that are built on low emotions like ethnically biased hatred, fear, envy, resentment and nothing else...come forward and defend the logical chain of thought behind these calls for disintegration..that is what this challenge is about.

Therefore, since there is a difference between those seeking re-construction and those seeking dissolution and, since the latter are the ones I wish to debate, unless you make it clear that you will be arguing from that point of view, I see no point in joining issues with you.

No disrespect, but I do not want the purpose of this debate to be obfuscated. I will rather stay with the challenge unanswered. At least that way, it becomes a matter of record that these so-called freedom fighters know when to flex and when to slink away with their tails tucked between their thighs....:biggrin:.

NoLongThing
Jun 24, 2008, 06:07 PM
I opened this thread to challenge those who have been consistently screaming that the dissolution of Nigeria is the only solution to our problems. Simple. If you are capable of seeing the detrimental hollowness that is at the core of what they are peddling, then I cannot understand how you fail to see the need to confront them in a place like the Crucible.

NVS is a "Marketplace of Ideas" yes. But answer this question: what kind of market allows poison to be openly sold without challenge?

Eja, I think you have missed the thrust of my post. I wanted to know if your challenge extended to those who want a re-structuring of Nigeria as it is presently constituted, a group which includes moi for sure. I was therefore looking forward to take you up on your challenge, however, given your further clarification of your position, then I will have to step aside for the moment.

Should you find someone to take up this challenge as I think is proper, I would be interested in injecting my point of view once in a while, if that is okay.:smile:

NoLongThing
Jun 24, 2008, 06:10 PM
Just saw last post to nextlevel - I apologise.

Ishola Taiwo
Jun 24, 2008, 06:12 PM
And do you notice that none of the ethnic jingoists is here to debate you? :)

Busanga, I am waiting O...:biggrin:.

Maybe I will have to register another handle so that I can debate myself....:wink:

Or, maybe someone who does not agree with them but, who knows how they think (and all their talking points) can challenge me...oya now!

Ishola Taiwo
Jun 24, 2008, 06:13 PM
Eja, I think you have missed the thrust of my post. I wanted to know if your challenge extended to those who want a re-structuring of Nigeria as it is presently constituted, a group which includes moi for sure. I was therefore looking forward to take you up on your challenge, however, given your further clarification of your position, then I will have to step aside for the moment.

Should you find someone to take up this challenge as I think is proper, I would be interested in injecting my point of view once in a while, if that is okay.:smile:

BBalo, take up the challenge on their behalf...ah beg you....

busanga
Jun 24, 2008, 06:22 PM
Busanga, I am waiting O...:biggrin:.

Maybe I will have to register another handle so that I can debate myself....:wink:

Or, maybe someone who does not agree with them but, who knows how they think (and all their talking points) can challenge me...oya now!

Omo..you go wait tire. Most of them have no clue of what they are saying. When ideas are rooted in emotions and not logic, they fizzle. :D

NoLongThing
Jun 24, 2008, 07:18 PM
Eja, to be honest with you I am actively seeking out a way to represent that group and it is not easy to come up with a constructive position for something you do not firmly believe in. If I am able to find a rationale for their thought process, I will let you know.

Myne Whitman
Jun 24, 2008, 07:29 PM
Eja,

Since you know the people you have in mind, have you gone to throw down the gauntlet before them? They may not know the challenge is here or even that the crucible exists...


Otherwise, why not accept those who wish to assert that disintegration if not the ONLY option is perhaps the next best thing. Like Bbalogun or Nextlevel...

EezeeBee
Jun 24, 2008, 07:46 PM
Eja, you will find that those who call for irrevocable and irretrievable dissolution (not restructuring, as I am an advocate of) have neither an idea how they could go about it nor what the results would look like and as such many of their ideas would NOT withstand the scrutiny and pressure of rigorous investigation.

EezeeBee
Jun 24, 2008, 07:48 PM
Eja,

Since you know the people you have in mind, have you gone to throw down the gauntlet before them? They may not know the challenge is here or even that the crucible exists...


Otherwise, why not accepts those who wish to assert that disintegration if not the ONLY option is perhaps the next best thing. Like Bbalogun or Nextlevel...

Mulan it wouldn't be a debate because Eja (if I'm not mistaken) has no objection to restructuring Nigeria.

NextLevel
Jun 24, 2008, 08:01 PM
NextLevel, from the section that I have bolded above, it seems that you are also one who thinks that Nigeria should be re-structured. Well, you will note that my challenge is to those who want Nigeria disintegrated...in other words, those who want Nigeria put asunder irrevocably (with everyman afterwards a citizen of his own ethnically uniform republic/kingdom).

And yes, I will include those who keep talking about this mythical Southern Nigeria in that description.

I am not arguing against a need for re-structuring. Let me state that again.

I said right from the start that there are other options...there are several options all together and dissolution is the worst...yet, we have people here who do not hesitate at the slightest opportunity to cry wistfully after some bogus Oodua republic, Biafra, or 'Southern Nigeria'. I would like one of them to engage in a debate...leave aside the pre-cooked repetitious and empty rhetorics that are built on low emotions like ethnically biased hatred, fear, envy, resentment and nothing else...come forward and defend the logical chain of thought behind these calls for disintegration..that is what this challenge is about.

Therefore, since there is a difference between those seeking re-construction and those seeking dissolution and, since the latter are the ones I wish to debate, unless you make it clear that you will be arguing from that point of view, I see no point in joining issues with you.

No disrespect, but I do not want the purpose of this debate to be obfuscated. I will rather stay with the challenge unanswered. At least that way, it becomes a matter of record that these so-called freedom fighters know when to flex and when to slink away with their tails tucked between their thighs....:biggrin:.

I'm not as convinced as you are that there is a difference between those calling for re-construction and those seeking dissolution, but I'm sure that your distinction must be based on something you saw or read somewhere. Maybe you could point us to the kind of article/post that characterizes dissolution and if I agree with it, I'll take this up?

Myne Whitman
Jun 24, 2008, 08:01 PM
Eezeebee,

I was not talking about restructuring, but disintegration.

Eja has made the pillars of his argument plain in his first post.

NL has said he would debate him on those planks as far as its clear he's no ethnic jingoist or disintegration fanatic.


Originally Posted by Eja

I said right from the start that there are other options...there are several options all together and dissolution is the worst...yet, we have people here who do not hesitate at the slightest opportunity to cry wistfully after some bogus Oodua republic, Biafra, or 'Southern Nigeria'. I would like one of them to engage in a debate...

Eja,

I know some present as ethnic champions on these boards but are really not or have not thought about it. If that is just what you want to prove, then fine. But if you are willing to put your own proposals to the test, then you should be able to pick up the next best challenge [DISSOLUTION IS NOT THE WORST]. Bear in mind that not everybody is a good debater as the crucible requires and our resident irredentists may be among that number. ..

busanga
Jun 24, 2008, 08:10 PM
Eja, you will find that those who call for irrevocable and irretrievable dissolution (not restructuring, as I am an advocate of) have neither an idea how they could go about it nor what the results would look like and as such many of their ideas would NOT withstand the scrutiny and pressure of rigorous investigation.

Gbam! Well put. Personally, I don't think Next Level belongs to the camp Eja wants to debate. As far as I can tell most of us on this thread want Nigeria restrcutured- but cannot make any sense of the call to dissolve the union as the ONLY solution to her problems. The problems are no where to be found, and I can't believe they have not been reading since one of them was giving thank you and posting unrelated articles earlier on. :cool:

adama50
Jun 25, 2008, 07:21 AM
I'm not as convinced as you are that there is a difference between those calling for re-construction and those seeking dissolution, but I'm sure that your distinction must be based on something you saw or read somewhere. Maybe you could point us to the kind of article/post that characterizes dissolution and if I agree with it, I'll take this up?

Check on the thread by Segun Adeniyi for the kind of posts that call for dissolution.

http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/main-square/73834-much-ado-about-northernisation-olusegun-adeniyi.html

Chief Kalu
Jun 25, 2008, 09:27 AM
I opened this thread to challenge those who have been consistently screaming that the dissolution of Nigeria is the only solution to our problems. Simple. If you are capable of seeing the detrimental hollowness that is at the core of what they are peddling, then I cannot understand how you fail to see the need to confront them in a place like the Crucible.

NVS is a "Marketplace of Ideas" yes. But answer this question: what kind of market allows poison to be openly sold without challenge?

Eja,
You may be surprised that if ona articulates his points properly, he could beat you in this debate. Nigeria seems too big and too complex a nation to be managed considering our level of development-technology,technocracy,etc. Smaller entities might do this magic of utmost utilization of human and material resourses. Just an eye opener though. The smaller the better, I think. Could take you up, but am afraid, the energy to do a thorough work might be a problem.
Come to think of it, there comes a time that you want to question whether belief in Nigeria makes sence. A situation where nothing seems to be working, no one seems to trust or appreciate the other.
Every ethnic nationality cries marginalization, I can go on and on. But its supposed to be a debate no so?
Eja ,like a bad marriage,will you advice that the couple die in it. Dissolution might be the best bet for the utmost happiness of those involved. Dosn't it make better sence?
If I will require a Visa to live in Rivers State after, whats wrong with that? I am smoking Eja!

NoLongThing
Jun 25, 2008, 12:31 PM
I'm not as convinced as you are that there is a difference between those calling for re-construction and those seeking dissolution, but I'm sure that your distinction must be based on something you saw or read somewhere. Maybe you could point us to the kind of article/post that characterizes dissolution and if I agree with it, I'll take this up?

There is a huge difference between the disolving and the re-construction of Nigeria - I find it hard to believe that you are this handicapped as not to be able to comprehend this simple fact. Your grandstanding and posturing is not only nauseating and deceitful but should be seen for what it is, which is mere posturing for the sake of it. More importantly, it is sometimes better to not contribute to a thread and leave people with the benefit of doubt as to your abilities than to contribute and confirm the fears of most people.

Eja, in my opinion, has been very clear on those he is seeking to engage.

NextLevel
Jun 25, 2008, 12:54 PM
There is a huge difference between the disolving and the re-construction of Nigeria - I find it hard to believe that you are this handicapped as not to be able to comprehend this simple fact. Your grandstanding and posturing is not only nauseating and deceitful but should be seen for what it is, which is mere posturing for the sake of it. More importantly, it is sometimes better to not contribute to a thread and leave people with the benefit of doubt as to your abilities than to contribute and confirm the fears of most people.

Eja, in my opinion, has been very clear on those he is seeking to engage.

I'm sorry, but I am that "handicapped", since you would use such a word. Could you please explain to me what the difference is?

Dissolution is one form of restructuring and in fact, many of the sentiments of those who seek dissolution are quite similar to those who seek restructuring. The question then becomes: what is the degree? That is what I want Eja to make clear. It seems he has read some posts elsewhere that I might not have read and he has particular opponents in mind. I have no problem with that, but others like mulan have also noticed that the difference in degree might still give rise to an informative debate if done. Sometimes, even extremists have points that can be rehabilitated if they understand where they have gone wrong. And even then, maybe what one person considers extreme is what another person considers realistic or required. I do remember when you were championing Weapons of Mass Destruction and I raised logical argument upon logical argument that Saddam could not have had any. You insulted me then as a confused extremist. N'est-ce pas? But I have not tried to take credit for any rehabilitated views that you might have had since then.

And please do not use this as an opportunity to insult me. Because if you do, I will realize that that was the point of this post in the first place and I will simply shake my head at being the sucker who responded to your tirade. As someone who regards you with some degree of respect, I am quite disappointed in your tone and approach to this. But maybe, I'll exercise better judgment next time.

Cheers,
NL

NextLevel
Jun 25, 2008, 12:56 PM
Check on the thread by Segun Adeniyi for the kind of posts that call for dissolution.

http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/main-square/73834-much-ado-about-northernisation-olusegun-adeniyi.html

Could you provide a post number please? Thanks. Wading through the whole thread sometimes is too taxing.

NoLongThing
Jun 25, 2008, 01:34 PM
Given your response, then perhaps my tone was a bit too harsh, for I can see that our respective understanding of the terms re-construction versus dissolution, are very different, whilst granting that the sentiments are indeed similar. With regards to dissolution it is my understanding that means to dissolve, to break up as in to separate and to go their different ways or even to end something, reconstruction on the other hand means to put together in a different form or way – to re-build in a way that is different to before, to rebuild what has been constructed differently.

But, boy you do go back a bit in history, don't you. Luckily, I am sure that records are very well preserved on this board (or is it the old Nigeriaworld?), but there is no way I argued along the lines that you suggested nor did you argue along those lines. My view was and has remained the same – we were told that WMDs existed and were even shown that they existed (remember Colin Powell at the UN), and my submission then was that if this evidence provided was true, then the US was within its legal and moral rights to address the issue, so my dear friend, do not attach to me what it was I never stood for. That by the way is history for now and we are all the better for learning that governments can and do tell dangerous lies.

NextLevel
Jun 25, 2008, 01:53 PM
Given your response, then perhaps my tone was a bit too harsh, for I can see that our respective understanding of the terms re-construction versus dissolution, are very different, whilst granting that the sentiments are indeed similar. With regards to dissolution it is my understanding that means to dissolve, to break up as in to separate and to go their different ways or even to end something, reconstruction on the other hand means to put together in a different form or way – to re-build in a way that is different to before, to rebuild what has been constructed differently.

But, boy you do go back a bit in history, don't you. Luckily, I am sure that records are very well preserved on this board (or is it the old Nigeriaworld?), but there is no way I argued along the lines that you suggested nor did you argue along those lines. My view was and has remained the same – we were told that WMDs existed and were even shown that they existed (remember Colin Powell at the UN), and my submission then was that if this evidence provided was true, then the US was within its legal and moral rights to address the issue, so my dear friend, do not attach to me what it was I never stood for. That by the way is history for now and we are all the better for learning that governments can and do tell dangerous lies.


Yes, it was the Nigeriaworld board that crashed and disappeared before the elections in Nigeria. Anyways, I'll let it go because memory can distort things even in the most innocent ways.

If that is the case, I do not find dissolution, even with its practical limitations, anything close to as reprehensible as Eja does, even if its advocates might not be sophisticated in their defence of it. I will gladly debate Eja on the matter because it will be a chance to realistically elucidate some of the issues which "restructurers" might want to glide over and which "dissolvers" do not, and vice versa.

Chief Kalu
Jun 25, 2008, 02:22 PM
If that is the case, I do not find dissolution, even with its practical limitations, anything close to as reprehensible as Eja does, even if its advocates might not be sophisticated in their defence of it. I will gladly debate Eja on the matter because it will be a chance to realistically elucidate some of the issues which "restructurers" might want to glide over and which "dissolvers" do not, and vice versa.

And I will gladly wish to lend you my support. I have the right to change my former position,withdraw my support for Eja. This does not in any way mean that I am a fanatic for dissolution.It could be a very workable option, not folly.

Khalil
Jun 25, 2008, 02:27 PM
You see, I am sure I am not the target of this debate even though I believe Nigeria, in the way it is, may not work well( no absolutes) no matter how much re-structuring it can be given. I also believe the dissolution theory is not also very efficacious as some do think.

My position is Nigeria is very likely to break up on its own without anybody doing anything to break it, not mention the least, which is baseless ranting on the net that borders on ethnic bashing in some manner of intolerence and lack of appreciation of the intricate nature of human person and the institutions he has created on earth over the millenia in history. Of course in ignorance of the nature of human cultural realities over time.

You see, nations, humans, ideas and any other thing you might think of, in as much as it has a form, it will certainly expire and die away. The Arabs say: Lau sabaral qatilu la matal maqtul, meaning, should the killer be patient his target will die a natural death.

In this even organised political entities structurally, like the USA will eventually dissolve, disingtegrate and die out with the passage of time. Mhm, don't mention, Nigeria that has defied all social theories. It will certainly go down, maybe today or tomorrow.

If the systems in other organised nations can be described as a moving bus with everything right on it, Nigeria can be described to be a damaged bus put on road with a blind, arrogant and cantenkerous driver who has to put his energy from outside the car, push it a bit, and rush his means inside to have a feel of the movement with the passengers before it stops again after a minute or less.

Those advocating for restructuring are saying the car parts can be changed and repaired and the blind driver replaced. No. I said it above that the car is damaged and even if you can restructure it, the driver is blind, arrogant and cantenkerous who will not allow you the chance to take his bus away from him.

Khalilurrahman

Chief Kalu
Jun 25, 2008, 02:43 PM
You see, I am sure I am not the target of this debate even though I believe Nigeria, in the way it is, may not work well( no absolutes) no matter how much re-structuring it can be given. I also believe the dissolution theory is not also very efficacious as some do think.

Khalilurrahman

At least as we wait for the debate to commence, let me take time out to greet my good friend Mallam Khalil. And Chief moves out of his seat in the debate chamber to greet Khalil. Khallil how are you? So long friend!:D:D

NoLongThing
Jun 25, 2008, 02:43 PM
Yes, it was the Nigeriaworld board that crashed and disappeared before the elections in Nigeria. Anyways, I'll let it go because memory can distort things even in the most innocent ways.

If that is the case, I do not find dissolution, even with its practical limitations, anything close to as reprehensible as Eja does, even if its advocates might not be sophisticated in their defence of it. I will gladly debate Eja on the matter because it will be a chance to realistically elucidate some of the issues which "restructurers" might want to glide over and which "dissolvers" do not, and vice versa.

If what I read into your post is what I think it is, then you will have me to contend with as I will be in Eja's camp. So there you have it, let the drums roll.

PS: As a marker/starter, I see you have used a quote from Enoch Powell as your signature. Not a good idea. I suggest you google his views on black people's presence in his country.

RAYNOSA
Jun 25, 2008, 02:47 PM
@Khalilurrahman
You are busy arguing about Disintergration of Nigeria,while a fellow Nigerian Muslim is about to be Beheaded in Saudi-Arabia.
Pls you are needed on this thread.RE:NIGERIAN ABOUT TO BE BEHEADED IN SAUDI-ARABIA.
Cheers

Son of the Delta
Jun 25, 2008, 04:36 PM
@ Eja,

It would be hard to get a debate partner on this issue because apart from Bode Eluyera and a few others who feel there is no other option except division most villagers see disintegration as a last option.Most people seem to be in favour of restructuring.

NextLevel
Jun 25, 2008, 06:44 PM
If what I read into your post is what I think it is, then you will have me to contend with as I will be in Eja's camp. So there you have it, let the drums roll.

PS: As a marker/starter, I see you have used a quote from Enoch Powell as your signature. Not a good idea. I suggest you google his views on black people's presence in his country.

Why just Black people? What about his views on Indians and Pakistanis?

I know it is popular to call everyone who makes a statement that might apply to people of a particular ethnicity/culture racist, but Powell was simply making a version of the argumeht that I would make if this debate started - that mixing cultures/ethnicities can have deleterious effects on the social good if not done and engineered with great care. That he made it from a British perspective does not invalidate its truth. I might have opposed him on the basis of self interest had I lived in Britain, but the broader truth of what he says should not be attacked just because we are trying to be politically correct.

NoLongThing
Jun 25, 2008, 07:44 PM
Why just Black people? What about his views on Indians and Pakistanis?

I know it is popular to call everyone who makes a statement that might apply to people of a particular ethnicity/culture racist, but Powell was simply making a version of the argumeht that I would make if this debate started - that mixing cultures/ethnicities can have deleterious effects on the social good if not done and engineered with great care. That he made it from a British perspective does not invalidate its truth. I might have opposed him on the basis of self interest had I lived in Britain, but the broader truth of what he says should not be attacked just because we are trying to be politically correct.


Firstly, Nextlevel because I am a blackman and his views on the issues of race was very disturbing to put it mildly, in fact so disturbing was it way back in the sixties in this country when they used to put up signs in front of rental properties that read "no dogs and no blacks", that he had to quit his political platform and his dreams of rising up the political platform. The speech I am sure you realise was called the rivers of blood or something along those lines. Till today to be associated with Enoch Powell is to belong to the lunatic fringe of the British political establishment and to inhabit the lands where the likes of the British Naional party belong.

Furthermore and with regards to your reference on culture, I ask what is so special about culture that it has to remain static. It was culture that allowed twins to be killed in the certain southern parts of Nigeria back in the days before the Mary Slessors of this world had their say. Comparable cultures need not be equal and some cultures are in fact superior to others but by its nature, culture is transient and is ever evovling and very much borrows from others, states/society/social morals are equally so but what Mr Powell sort to do was to play to the ignorant and suspicious masses who do not understand/appreciate the sophistification needed to read in between the lines of political grandstanding, for selfish political gains which alienates a vunerable minority within a society. That sir, is my grouse with Mr Powell and his ilk.

DeepThought
Jun 25, 2008, 10:34 PM
NL,
Your point about dissolution/reconstruciton is noted. But you should read Bode Eluyera's articles. Any one at random will do.

Also read SOD and I think another fellow... Dockwky in order to appreciate the kinds of people Eja wants to debate.

Eja.
Too bad you won't let NL or perhaps myself debate (trivialize?) this issue with you just for fun since the tribal irridentists (now this is where Kenn would be correct to use the word)who think the solution to Nigeria is simply opting out to forming their own little hamlets , won't come forward.

Perhaps you can tone down your topic to something likes "Nigeria will not last another xxx years if not restructured."


Thanks

busanga
Jun 25, 2008, 11:44 PM
Eja,
You may be surprised that if ona articulates his points properly, he could beat you in this debate. Nigeria seems too big and too complex a nation to be managed considering our level of development-technology,technocracy,etc. Smaller entities might do this magic of utmost utilization of human and material resourses. Just an eye opener though. The smaller the better, I think. Could take you up, but am afraid, the energy to do a thorough work might be a problem.

While I understand you are not fully committed to this line of thinking, the problem inherent in it lies in that :

1. Global realities suggest that in fact, it is the larger the better. Smaller nations are perennially crippled unless their ratio of resources to people is vast, and even then those resources will never be used by them but will be exploited by larger powers in return for detente..Botswana comes to mind

2. Breaking Nigeria into manageable parts does not necessarily need to involve the dissolution of the central union. A weak center and decentralization of powers will achieve the same result while avoiding the pitfalls mentioned above. Currently, it is managed from the center which is quite unmanageable. But why cure headache with brain surgery?

NextLevel
Jun 26, 2008, 01:39 AM
Firstly, Nextlevel because I am a blackman and his views on the issues of race was very disturbing to put it mildly, in fact so disturbing was it way back in the sixties in this country when they used to put up signs in front of rental properties that read "no dogs and no blacks", that he had to quit his political platform and his dreams of rising up the political platform. The speech I am sure you realise was called the rivers of blood or something along those lines. Till today to be associated with Enoch Powell is to belong to the lunatic fringe of the British political establishment and to inhabit the lands where the likes of the British Naional party belong.

Furthermore and with regards to your reference on culture, I ask what is so special about culture that it has to remain static. It was culture that allowed twins to be killed in the certain southern parts of Nigeria back in the days before the Mary Slessors of this world had their say. Comparable cultures need not be equal and some cultures are in fact superior to others but by its nature, culture is transient and is ever evovling and very much borrows from others, states/society/social morals are equally so but what Mr Powell sort to do was to play to the ignorant and suspicious masses who do not understand/appreciate the sophistification needed to read in between the lines of political grandstanding, for selfish political gains which alienates a vunerable minority within a society. That sir, is my grouse with Mr Powell and his ilk.

You seem highly convinced of your position, Councillor. For the record, I do not think that the masses are suspicious and ignorant. The question of whether England will still continue to mix and entertain its immigrants and natives with success is still an open one, and rather than debate it, I'll let the future speak for itself.

A book I would recommend to people who continue to reject the importance of commonality of culture, race and ethnicity to social harmony is The Ethnic Phenomenon. When a socialist is forced to take a position that contradicts the foundations of most of what he believes in, it makes compelling reading.

NoLongThing
Jun 26, 2008, 02:18 AM
You seem highly convinced of your position, Councillor. For the record, I do not think that the masses are suspicious and ignorant. The question of whether England will still continue to mix and entertain its immigrants and natives with success is still an open one, and rather than debate it, I'll let the future speak for itself.

A book I would recommend to people who continue to reject the importance of commonality of culture, race and ethnicity to social harmony is The Ethnic Phenomenon. When a socialist is forced to take a position that contradicts the foundations of most of what he believes in, it makes compelling reading.


Councillor?? Now that's a blast from the past! I will bear the suggestion of the book in mind and should I be opportuned to make out the time and have the book at my disposal, I will definitely give it a read. Having said that, I do not share your views on the "Britist entertainment of its immigrants", in fact I see the process as irreversible. Why I hear you ask?? Ask and I will give free reign to my reasons.

Khalil
Jun 26, 2008, 08:47 AM
1.00: I will try to be as concise as I can be with this two part submission. Therefore, where I use examples, please be assured that for every one that I use, there are several other things that I could have mentioned.



Eja,

Thanks for a brilliant submission as usual, nothing short of what I expect actually. But while awaiting your second submission, I will want to remind you that your topic which carries the stament of interest, Nigeria: The folly of Disintegration, carries also an implied argument that says, Nigeria: The logic of Integration, integration here may mean the restructuring you say you stand for.

What I am trying to say is, as you go about dislodging the component logic, as a folly, of the disintegrationeers, you will need to, at the same time, substantiate the logic of the restructuring you believe in. This means while you block our ways eastwards you have to show us the ways westwards! We can't hang on, as they say: between the devil and the deep blue see!

Actually it has been my problem all along. I love to see Nigeria working, but how? This keeping in mind what Nigeria was, with its weak centre prior to 1970!

Khalilurrahman

Khalil
Jun 26, 2008, 09:14 AM
@Khalilurrahman
You are busy arguing about Disintergration of Nigeria,while a fellow Nigerian Muslim is about to be Beheaded in Saudi-Arabia.
Pls you are needed on this thread.RE:NIGERIAN ABOUT TO BE BEHEADED IN SAUDI-ARABIA.
Cheers

Raynosa,

My causin was short dead last week, in Nigeria here in Sagamu, Lagos State and the murderers are yet to be identified.

Last year, another cousin died in Port Harcourt, when caught up in one the the militant's offensives.

In 1990, an elder brother, a Senior Custom Officer got killed by hired killers in Lagos.

In all these we are only advised to forget it cause the killers can not be identified and tried.

This plus the many Nigerians dying daily on the highways in the hands of robbers due to insecurity or accidents that climbs top to control towers in airports in recent times.

Again about Nigerians dying due to ethnic and religious crisis due, of course, to the failure of the government to secure the life and properties of its citizens everywhere in the space of Nigerian geography.

You can see why it is a priority to discuss the future of Nigeria, which so far is proving to be a death trap, with the view of fixing its administrative structural problems that led to all I mentioned above, than to attempt rescuing a brother only to bring him back to Nigeria on top of a religious or ethnic war, or just the anger of a misguided hoodlum, on the streets, that will put a bullet in him, while I be told to just forget it, it is normal?

Khalilurrahman

NextLevel
Jun 26, 2008, 09:33 AM
Councillor?? Now that's a blast from the past! I will bear the suggestion of the book in mind and should I be opportuned to make out the time and have the book at my disposal, I will definitely give it a read. Having said that, I do not share your views on the "Britist entertainment of its immigrants", in fact I see the process as irreversible. Why I hear you ask?? Ask and I will give free reign to my reasons.

Of course the process is irreversible. The question is whether it is stable and whether the British will continue to benefit from it, assuming they already have.

Alata
Jun 26, 2008, 11:37 AM
Eja,
I edited post #59 (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/crucible/73771-nigeria-folly-disintegratrion-6.html#post4295060962) in order to ask you, as well as other co-debaters, to bear the "burden of proof".

Myne Whitman
Jun 26, 2008, 11:39 AM
Eja,

This is looking interesting now. Funny, but it would seem that we're arguing on different sides of the same coin this time. I think Nigeria is a nation as is but also it is a failed state and so a rethink is needed. You agree that dissolution is one of the options but argue against the sense behind it. I need to be convinced, but your post #52 has not done a very good job...


Iyaalata,

Could you clarify if your opposition is on disintegration being the ONLY way to lift Nigeria out of its mess or if it is simply that it is NOT the worst option? Thanks...

NoLongThing
Jun 26, 2008, 12:21 PM
Of course the process is irreversible. The question is whether it is stable and whether the British will continue to benefit from it, assuming they already have.

Whether they benefit or not is the one thing people will find difficult to agree on, it will depend to a large extent on which side of the political divide your interests lie. My belief is that they have benefited imensely and will continue to do so, if properly managed for the greater good of all.

Alata
Jun 26, 2008, 01:30 PM
I would like to debate with one (or several) of the loudest advocates on NVS for the splitting up of Nigeria along ethnic lines.

My main argument will involve showing how the single-minded pursuit of this aim would be the greatest strategic mistake our people could make at this time.

While I do agree that the present arrangement is far from ideal, I also believe that an uncompromising urge to divide Nigeria up into contiguous sovereign countries makes no sense within current global realities.

I am also prepared to defend the prediction that should this aim be pursued in all seriousness by the most influential stakeholders in our communities, at the end of it (most probably several generations from when it is embarked upon), the geo-political morsels that will result from the disintegration of Nigeria will be economic basket-cases and playthings/feeding grounds for non-Nigerian entities.

I am also prepared to argue that by proposing the disintegration of the union of the African peoples currently known as Nigerians as being the only solution to the presently faulty union, the advocates for this disintegration are working consciously (or unconsciously) for the same interests that have being preying on African miseries for several centuries now.

There are other much more efficacious solutions and they do not necessitate the transformation of current Nigerian geographical space into several sovereign countries.

Following the gentle nudging by Denker in post #10, I have visited This Nigeria Will Never be a Nation (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/crucible/44096-nigeria-will-never-nation-2.html) discussion between Eja and Mulan. From that debate and Eja's assertion in this topic, my points of debate will be influenced by the assumption that Eja is not against dissolution per se, but is against dissolution or attempts at dissolution that play into what I call the 'strategic interests of the 'international community'.

Mulan,
It has been pointed out that on too many occasions far and near that Nigeria has failed in its duties and responsibilities as a sovereign country. If Nigeria does not willingly and peacefully restructure itself to suit the interests of Nigerians, it will possibly be restructured sooner or later and that one of the probable outcomes will be violent dissolution. For the sake of this debate, I am arguing, not agitating for a activation of a confederacy of African tribal/ethnic nation-states as the key strategic vehicles for African gameplay in the "current global realities" and undercurrents that I observe.

As it is, the non-federal non-republic of Nigeria is a grand tomb into which conspirators directed our people - led by somewhat naive nationalists singing the praises of the dead Pharaoh of economically-bankrupting flag independence - in order in part to contain the perennial threat of 'black' solidarity. It will be suicidal to dissolve the colonial-remnant countries in Africa without an concurrent agenda to rebuild the African national confederacy. I am arguing for an urgent schedule to disintegrate Nigeria and other colonial-remnant countries in Africa in order to unleash our people to compete and cooperate in a more dynamic global context.

Eja, is it your position that in a failed marriage, no husband or wife should seek divorce because other interested parties await to snatch up the family assets?

NextLevel
Jun 26, 2008, 01:46 PM
Whether they benefit or not is the one thing people will find difficult to agree on, it will depend to a large extent on which side of the political divide your interests lie. My belief is that they have benefited imensely and will continue to do so, if properly managed for the greater good of all.

So I presume that you disagree with the subcommittee of the House of Lords' report on the benefits of immigration (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/01/immigrationpolicy.immigrationandpublicservices)? I mean, you are an immigrant so it is easy to argue in your interests. But what I am asking is something like this: would you advocate that we in Nigeria pursue the same immigration policies that currently obtain in Britain should we be so organized in the and have the opportunity to control of our borders?

NextLevel
Jun 26, 2008, 01:50 PM
Do we clear this thread so that Eja's and iyaalata's debate can become the focus or should they open another thread? I usually prefer one-on-one threads, but usually, inevitably, someone always butts in. Was wondering if there could ever be a way for admins to limit posting rights for crucible threads to just the debaters.

Myne Whitman
Jun 26, 2008, 02:55 PM
NextLevel,

The rule is usually that the principal debaters agree on a moderator and a new thread is created for them to start the main debate...

NextLevel
Jun 26, 2008, 03:03 PM
NextLevel,

The rule is usually that the principal debaters agree on a moderator and a new thread is created for them to start the main debate...

Yes, but then people start butting in and all kinds of things happen....

Myne Whitman
Jun 26, 2008, 03:08 PM
NL,

Not in the crucible :). The butters in can do that here in the parallel thread but the main debate thread is left to the opponents and is monitored by the moderator. Any unnecessary posts by others are usually moved to the parallel thread ASAP. Of course there are a lot of 'happenings' in the parallel thread and that is allowed. You can browse other threads in the main crucible to get an idea...

busanga
Jun 26, 2008, 04:24 PM
As it is, the non-federal non-republic of Nigeria is a grand tomb into which conspirators directed our people - led by somewhat naive nationalists singing the praises of the dead Pharaoh of economically-bankrupting flag independence - in order in part to contain the perennial threat of 'black' solidarity. It will be suicidal to dissolve the colonial-remnant countries in Africa without an concurrent agenda to rebuild the African national confederacy. I am arguing for an urgent schedule to disintegrate Nigeria and other colonial-remnant countries in Africa in order to unleash our people to compete and cooperate in a more dynamic global context.
Funny, I agree with you on the submission above. But you and I know the probability of the highlighted to ever happen...but heck, it is an academic submission so it suffice.


Eja, is it your position that in a failed marriage, no husband or wife should seek divorce because other interested parties await to snatch up the family assets?

If this is Eja's position.. I also agree with him. It is not a new concept to stay married for the sake of the children. Heck, we are Africans!

From the foregoing, it is obvious that in this debate between you and Eja, I have two horses in the race. It will be a test of skills rather than a test of conviction and I will be sitting it out. I will chime in however if I see one leg of the argument is stronger than the other..but I am sorely dissapointed that none of those who indicate a secession or the highway has been willing to throw their hat in the crucible for a genuine debate devoid of intimidation and emotions. Thanks. I am watching on the sidelines

NoLongThing
Jun 26, 2008, 08:27 PM
So I presume that you disagree with the subcommittee of the House of Lords' report on the benefits of immigration (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/01/immigrationpolicy.immigrationandpublicservices)? I mean, you are an immigrant so it is easy to argue in your interests. But what I am asking is something like this: would you advocate that we in Nigeria pursue the same immigration policies that currently obtain in Britain should we be so organized in the and have the opportunity to control of our borders?


Like I said NL, I will not be in agreement with the committee'e report moreso given the fact that the said article clearly points out the fact that the author disagrees with the government's own position which is that immigration does bring about benefits to the society. I did say in my post that this topic would be very subjective and will depend on the which side of the political divide one belongs to - I believe that should you have taken the time to read the article, you would have noticed that my position on this issue has been proven right in the article which Lord Wakeham criticises the economic benefits of immigration.

I would also advise that you google Lord Wakeham and find out what side of the political divide he belongs - once you've done this, you will see that he is not as impartial as he makes out to be. The House of Lords is an unelected body with limited powers vis a vis the House of Parliament, they are usually the grandees of the political parties who are often rewarded for "their loyalty to their respective parties " with an appointment to that, Lord Wakeham's position given his antecedents (he comes from the Tory right, which in the states is like from the right wing of the GOP) should not be surprising. Besides there are other factors that can be wrongly overlooked such as greater international influence, more contacts, social development, less ignorance, richer culture etc etc - although having said that, someone else might come up with a different perspective.

Alata
Jun 26, 2008, 08:35 PM
This is supposed to be the main debating thread parallel to Eja's: Nigeria: the folly of Disintegration (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/crucible/73771-nigeria-folly-disintegratrion.html#post4295058564).

NextLevel
Jun 26, 2008, 11:18 PM
Like I said NL, I will not be in agreement with the committee'e report moreso given the fact that the said article clearly points out the fact that the author disagrees with the government's own position which is that immigration does bring about benefits to the society. I did say in my post that this topic would be very subjective and will depend on the which side of the political divide one belongs to - I believe that should you have taken the time to read the article, you would have noticed that my position on this issue has been proven right in the article which Lord Wakeham criticises the economic benefits of immigration.

I would also advise that you google Lord Wakeham and find out what side of the political divide he belongs - once you've done this, you will see that he is not as impartial as he makes out to be. The House of Lords is an unelected body with limited powers vis a vis the House of Parliament, they are usually the grandees of the political parties who are often rewarded for "their loyalty to their respective parties " with an appointment to that, Lord Wakeham's position given his antecedents (he comes from the Tory right, which in the states is like from the right wing of the GOP) should not be surprising. Besides there are other factors that can be wrongly overlooked such as greater international influence, more contacts, social development, less ignorance, richer culture etc etc - although having said that, someone else might come up with a different perspective.

Councillor, I'll agree with you for convenience (and to some degree, you are probably right - we sometimes can't separate bias from objectivity). Let's try another angle - this report has some immigration polls on page 6 that show that people generally favor immigration restriction (http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf). Why are they all ignorant?

NoLongThing
Jun 27, 2008, 03:34 AM
Councillor, I'll agree with you for convenience (and to some degree, you are probably right - we sometimes can't separate bias from objectivity). Let's try another angle - this report has some immigration polls on page 6 that show that people generally favor immigration restriction (http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf). Why are they all ignorant?

NL, I am assuming you are keeping a pointless discuss on going for the sake of it (please don't take this the wrong way) but I think our exchange has run it's course, since you do not disagree with much of what I have posted:confused::confused:. Of course, not everyone who disagrees with immigration is ignorant and there is very much a limitation to immigration - you cannot obviously just invite everyone in with no controls, that much I presumed ,would have been clear.

Alata
Jun 27, 2008, 06:29 AM
Iyaalata, you need to post your response on this thread. The Parallel Threads area is meant for supplementary contributions by other Villagers.

With all due respect, what we have here is a prime example of why we may not be making best use of our resources, in view of our circumstances. You started this debate. You should have immediately asked anyone who wants to contribute but is yet to accept being your co-debater to post their 'supplementary' comments in the parallel thread (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/parallel-threads/73945-nigeria-wisdom-disintegration.html).

You did not, and now this main thread is full of comments other than the core debate that request responses as well. Given the circumstances, are the admin(s) willing (I know they are able with the vBulletin technology) to please move this main thread to the parallel sub-forum and bring the parallel thread here? Or should we just continue here and address the supplementary comments in the parallel thread (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/parallel-threads/73945-nigeria-wisdom-disintegration.html).

NextLevel
Jun 27, 2008, 08:33 AM
The admins all seem to be missing in action. Here's hoping that they come back from the top of Mt. Sinai with lots of gifts from God!

Toku.A
Jun 27, 2008, 09:31 AM
I would like to join the debate on the opposing side any room for me?

Chief Kalu
Jun 27, 2008, 09:46 AM
With all due respect, what we have here is a prime example of why we may not be making best use of our resources, in view of our circumstances. You started this debate. You should have immediately asked anyone who wants to contribute but is yet to accept being your co-debater to post their 'supplementary' comments in the parallel thread (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/parallel-threads/73945-nigeria-wisdom-disintegration.html).

You did not, and now this main thread is full of comments other than the core debate that request responses as well. Given the circumstances, are the admin(s) willing (I know they are able with the vBulletin technology) to please move this main thread to the parallel sub-forum and bring the parallel thread here? Or should we just continue here and address the supplementary comments in the parallel thread (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/parallel-threads/73945-nigeria-wisdom-disintegration.html).
Eja had some people in mind he wanted to cahllenge at the crucible but failed to make this challenge direct. Invite anyone of them and make it a formal debate. The problem actually started with the beginning. We now have debaters and moderator, the debate can still commence.

Ishola Taiwo
Jun 27, 2008, 10:02 AM
Eja had some people in mind he wanted to cahllenge at the crucible but failed to make this challenge direct. Invite anyone of them and make it a formal debate. The problem actually started with the beginning. We now have debaters and moderator, the debate can still commence.

Chief, I threw the corn, there was no need to call any fowl by name. Trust me; the ones who have been calling loudest for the disintegration of Nigeria are aware of this challenge.

Ishola Taiwo
Jun 27, 2008, 10:06 AM
With all due respect, what we have here is a prime example of why we may not be making best use of our resources, in view of our circumstances. You started this debate. You should have immediately asked anyone who wants to contribute but is yet to accept being your co-debater to post their 'supplementary' comments in the parallel thread (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/parallel-threads/73945-nigeria-wisdom-disintegration.html).

You did not, and now this main thread is full of comments other than the core debate that request responses as well. Given the circumstances, are the admin(s) willing (I know they are able with the vBulletin technology) to please move this main thread to the parallel sub-forum and bring the parallel thread here? Or should we just continue here and address the supplementary comments in the parallel thread (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/parallel-threads/73945-nigeria-wisdom-disintegration.html).

There was no need to set up a supplemental thread when the challenge was yet to get underway. And right now, there still is no problem. All the moderator will have to do (once he gets the necessary privileges) is move all posts with the exception of my two-part submission and your response into the parallel threads area.

denker
Jun 27, 2008, 10:06 AM
..i see a lot of confusion...yes, am even confused...am taking a leave from the Crucible until the restoration of SANITY..au revoir!

Alata
Jun 27, 2008, 12:23 PM
Thanks to the admin(s) for sorting out which thread is which.

Toku.A,
Put your yabis here and follow the debaters' arguments in the main thread (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/crucible/73771-nigeria-folly-wisdom-disintegration-main-debate-thread.html#post4295061339).

Docokwy, Ednut, Bode, Son of the Delta
(I am calling some names, but I did not throw corn and do not know if fowls are answering)
It may be that Eja wanted a "dissolution or else" advocate to tell us what their "or else" meant, and instead got humble Iyaalata saying "dissolution so that". Be that as it may, debate has now started.

Denker,
Come back at once! Please?! After shouting yourself hoarse (abi na horse) they have now fixed it.
What is this I see on your brain made of? Do NVS rules allow this sort of a thing? Admin?!!!

Palamedes
Jun 27, 2008, 12:29 PM
@iyaalata
Sir, what do I now think of the "usual suspects," villagers who make the most noise, and in a habit of calling for the destruction of Nigeria? “Nigeria is a contraption,” “Nigeria must be broken up,” they would repeat like chronic crammers. Indeed I think less of them now than ever before. They lack the guts to debate and hold on to their own, except to recycle the same old [beans and cheese induced] fart.

Here is a great opportunity for them to argue their case but they have all ran for cover or "done a runner", as we say in London--forced absence from NVS. And you, brave sir, have to save their face. Nevertheless, I still hope that at least one of them will turn up and that you would kindly step aside and give them a life-time oppurtunity. Pardon my interjection, sir.

Alata
Jun 27, 2008, 02:51 PM
I still hope that at least one of them will turn up and that you would kindly step aside and give them a life-time oppurtunity.

Me self, dey wait.
But I go use the opportunity, sir, to land some koko oro (true talk) on Eja.

Chief Kalu
Jun 27, 2008, 03:28 PM
Me self, dey wait.
But I go use the opportunity, sir, to land some koko oro (true talk) on Eja.
Let the rogbodiyan begin, A no de go anywhear. I dey here to clap.Iyaalata, if you dey win I go dey your side:D

Gentle Angel
Jun 27, 2008, 03:45 PM
Disintegration the way people are going about it with only passion (anger, tribal sentiments, etc) with no reason or base of future outcome is definitely foolhardy.

Eja I am on your side.

Ishola Taiwo
Jun 27, 2008, 04:08 PM
Me self, dey wait.
But I go use the opportunity, sir, to land some koko oro (true talk) on Eja.

Oluku mi, you put leg inside sokoto tio lo oluwa (trosis wey no get owner), you wan come dey pose? You know why de owner been lef am for ground? Hee hee hee...

You put leg inside sokoto ti o lokun (trosis wey no get rope), you come dey talk say you wan run race wit leopard...how far you tink say you go rish? :lol:

I go mercy you.

Listen, so far you have said nothing to support your defense for the necessary dissolution of Nigeria.

In fact, what you have been doing is exactly what ones who are without logic to support this call do: They keep trying to blend their xenophobia with the quite reasonable demands being made by others for the restructuring of Nigeria.

They seek to make themselves into a majority by co-opting the reasonable into their unreasonable ranks.

I have seen this trick in action.

Now, you need to get back on the side you have chosen to defend and present an argument that states quite clearly why the disintegration of Nigeria is the best/only solution to the problems we face at this time - as has been said many a time on this very web-site.

NextLevel
Jun 27, 2008, 09:06 PM
Admins, it seems that eBulletin is confused about the thread structure. Could you please advise? Maybe entirely new threads should be set up for the debate?

Toku.A
Jun 28, 2008, 10:27 AM
Thanks to the admin(s) for sorting out which thread is which.

Toku.A,
Put your yabis here and follow the debaters' arguments in the main thread (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/crucible/73771-nigeria-folly-wisdom-disintegration-main-debate-thread.html#post4295061339).

Docokwy, Ednut, Bode, Son of the Delta
(I am calling some names, but I did not throw corn and do not know if fowls are answering)
It may be that Eja wanted a "dissolution or else" advocate to tell us what their "or else" meant, and instead got humble Iyaalata saying "dissolution so that". Be that as it may, debate has now started.

Denker,
Come back at once! Please?! After shouting yourself hoarse (abi na horse) they have now fixed it.
What is this I see on your brain made of? Do NVS rules allow this sort of a thing? Admin?!!!


Iyalaata
I am with you on this debate. I was able to go through the main debate. I think Eja made his arguements with refrence to disolved unions and used their scenarios to explain the folly of disintegration. You did a great job, and I will follow on Eja's pattern to make my points on the general thread.

Toku.A
Jun 28, 2008, 12:41 PM
1.00: I will try to be as concise as I can be with this two part submission. Therefore, where I use examples, please be assured that for every one that I use, there are several other things that I could have mentioned.


1.01: I am hoping with this debate to get certain things out in the open. I believe, as stated earlier, that those who are calling for the disintegration of Nigeria are ones working (consciously or unconsciously) for the same forces that originally set the peoples within that geographical space on their current aimless course.

I would like start with defining disintegration. Disintegration would mean the breaking of a union or the falling apart of something that had been joined together.
In the case of Nigeria besides the merging of the Southern and Northern 'protectorates' of the British crown there have been no merging of ideologies, or values so that the Country remains pretty much divided and as such it would be impossible to refer to disintegration except for geographical purposes.
Given the fact there does not exist an integrated Nigeria except on the maps, it might be neccessary to reflect this disintegrated status on the maps also or at least in governance.


1.02: In other words, just as once upon a time, the welding together of our various ethnicities into one State was the best option for the ones that midwifed the birth of Nigeria, the dissolution (at this time) of Nigeria into smaller (more manageable) chunks is now seen by those same predatory forces as being the best possible outcome.
Looking at the example of those that mid-wived the existence of Nigeria it is out place to think that smaller states are more easier to manage by predatory forces. Empirically the Viatnamese state would pass for a perfect example.

I
will be more elaborate regarding this assertion in the second part of this submission.

2.00: I believe that the ones calling for disintegration are disingenuous in the way they ignore certain immovable facts that stand in the way of a peaceful dissolution. I have also seen dishonesty in the way some have made assured assumptions that are based on nothing like the reality existing on the ground and, in the way certain euphemisms have being used to conceal what is actually being spoken about.
There are many example of peaceful dissolutions poignant example would include the Scandinavian states, and what became East and West Germany. A look at history shows that the bloodiest and longest lasting conflicts have always been conflicts that tried to retain people in Unions against their wish. Examples would include Sudan, the Nigerian Civil War, outside the continent, Kashmir, and even the Irish conflicts in comparison with the dissolution of the USSR seems to support the fact that there may be initial difficulties in coming to terms with a dissolution but the unrest that may occur are less lengthy in comparison to conflicts that are aimed at maintaining a union.


2.01: A common tactic when trying to illuminate a topic under discussion is to seek correspondence with situations that seem similar. I myself have used the example of long-term dissatisfaction in other multi-ethnic States while speaking of the obstacles that stand in the way of the birth of a true Nigerian nation. However, to go from using examples of the dissatisfactions that existed in a multi-ethnic empire like the USSR to describing its alleged peaceful dissolution as a predictor of something that looms inevitably in Nigeria's future is, as already stated, disingenuous.
Well I wouldn't say describing the disintegration of the USSR as peaceful disintegration is disingeneous because when we compare the length and the toll of keeping other Countries in the Western world united it had cost more, 'the wars' have been lengthy and have continued over many decades in some cases, so it plausible to say dissolution might be a good option, a better option would be to dissolve powers to the different ethnic groups in Nigeria.


2.02: Ongoing events in Chechnya, Ossetia, Ukraine, Georgia and the Asian Muslim republics that were the southern vanguard of the old USSR stand as proof that dissolution, even when accomplished without bloodshed does not always guarantee that a collective tragedy will not occur in the future.
Given the examples that you made, I am tempted to ask if you could be a bit elaborative in what you refer to as collective tragedy, but so far in places like Ossetia and Georgia it is more of the Georgian state refusing to allow any form of dissolution or disintegration even though she came into existence by the dissolution of another state (the USSR).


3.00: It may be good to look at the various scenarios that have been placed before us by those who speak on the forms dissolution can take.
There are many scenarios but I do not think we could get the scenarios right every group seems to have had their own scenario when the 1967 war broke out based on the intellectual and historical evidences with regards to Nigeria it is difficult to identify such scenarios one can only be speculative so I would respond to the scenario you provided.


3.010: There is the scenario where the so-called Southern Nigeria breaks away from what is called Northern Nigeria. The first question that springs to mind for me as a Yoruba person as I look upon this definitely anti-Emirate 'Southern Nigeria Republic' is : Where are my family from Kwara and Kogi?
Looking at this scenario the Afghan-Pakistani situation comes to mind. For example the government in Kabul seems to have difficulties making in-roads in the border towns so do the Pakistani Forces too since the both Countries are bordered on areas that do not have interests like their Countries but ones that transcend national boundaries. It is the same in some African Countries and even the Punjab area of India (though quite mild) and that is why many people seem to increasingly favour Countries on the basis of ethnicity.


3.011: Are these, ones with whom I have more in common with than with my so-called fellow 'Southern Nigerians', to be sacrificed on the altar of the repugnance that drives me away from those who share that part of Nigeria with the Yoruba? Or, am I to insist that they come with their fellow Omo Oodua?There are more questions along this line, but like I said earlier, for the sake of brevity, I will only mention a few out of several that exists.
Like the example I did make on Afghanistan I think in most cases it serves the interest of all nations to allow ethnic groups not to be divided between Countries. It should be "they come along with their fellow Omo Oodua" or both Countries allow them to unite and form their own nations because until now I haven't seen a case where a single Country have been able to effectively control single ethnic groups that have been separated. For example, neither India nor Pakistan have been able to exert full control over Kashmir, nor have Spain or France been able to totaly control the Basque or prevent them totally from have cross- border liasons.


3.020: Another scenario that is placed before us is the one where each ethnic group gets a country of its own.
I do not tink it is an impossible or a terrible scenario most European Countries are ethnic nations.


3.021: Unfortunately again, here, the examples we have from similar occurrences around the world are either to dissimilar to what exists on the ground in Nigeria, or, only half of the picture is revealed and, this is the half that serves the purpose of those using these occurrences as predictors of what can happen in Nigeria.
I am on the opposite side of the divide nearly every occurences around the world support views on the importance of ethnic nations or at the worst religious nations e.g Thailand is largely a buddhist Country it is a secular Country but most of the muslim minorities are said to favour their being joined with a neighbouring Country or being given more expounded autonomy that is very similar to the Nigerian scenario.


3.022: We are told about Czechoslovakia, a country that successfully broke up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. What we are not told is that the ease with which this happened was due to the fact that the two contiguous countries that evolved from the old Socialist Republic were peopled by the two majority ethnic groups that later made up the citizens of the devolved republics. In other words, unlike in a prospective Oodua Republic, especially in one where all areas that have a majority Yoruba population are included, there were no corresponding minorities like Awori, Urhrobo, Fulani, Ijaw, Ebira...etc.
In some cases the success of make or break scenarios do not always have to depend on large ethnic groups or the lack of minorities. The Union of the 2 majority groups was idelogical and the separation followed a decision to adopt new ideological guiding principles there are possibilites that the dissolution of Nigeria would lead to groups that are formed on ideolgoies not ethnicity.


3.023: Therefore, Slovakia has not experienced what the Oodua Republic will surely experience when the 'minorities' start asking either to be allowed to take their piece of land and join it to their brethren in the Ijaw Republic (for example) or, to the Arewa Sultanate (in the case of the Fulani). Neither has the Czech Republic experienced what the Oodua republic will experience when those Ebira and Urhrobo settlements caught up in its final borders disagree with the Yoruba consensus that sees the story of self-determination as one that has reached a conclusion and, commence instead a struggle for their own autonomy....
I do not know why you chose the Oodua to make your analysis on the Ebira, Urhobo or Ijaws but taking your example I woud say the Oodua Republic would be making to mistakes that would have led to Nigeria's disintegration.


3.024: In short, to use Czechoslovakia as an example is as bad as using the alleged peaceful break-up of the USSR as an example. The best predictors may actually be what is transpiring as we speak in the Caucasus [[B]Refs] and in the lands that used to be the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia.
I think the lesson that is to be learnt from the Caucuses and the case of the USSR is that forced unions would always disintegrate and to sweep under the carpet disatisfactions under the cover of 'national unity' would even worsen conditions when dissolution inevitably happens.

Since as we speak, Bosnia is still occupied by 'peace-keeping' forces from NATO and, the matter between Serbia and the Albanians of Kosovo is not yet settled, one is left to marvel at the superhuman optimistic ability of those from our country-men who, armed with blood-soaked examples like this, still proclaim the rightness of this crusade to lead us towards the bright future that beckons right after a clean separation from the masses of people who are at fault for the current Nigerian nightmare.
I did explain the down side of pretending to have a united multi-ethnic Country even when ideolgies and future expectations are not the same for every sector the problems of Kosovo, Bosnia, etc could be traced in part to pre-Yugoslavian history and the attempt of the Yugoslavian state to blur ethnic or religious divisions led to the crisis at dissolution. For example, Kosovo is considered to be the ancestral homeland of the Serbs but it currently has an Alabania majority which is said to be a migratory group and as such Serbs refuse to accept a Kosovan homeland with their pre-Yugoslavian homeland. There were also cases of Serbs being migratory to other communities when Yugoslavia existed some were deported back to areas considered to be pre-Yugoslavian Serb communities.


4.00: I assert that if there is no rational reason for the continued existence of Nigeria, then there is no reason to presume that there will be harmony in a Southern Nigeria Republic.
There may be no rational to presume there would be harmony in Southern Nigeria but the starting point may be for everyone to ask why there was no rational reason for Nigeria to exist.


4.01: For the sake of summarising the argument, we can disregard some reality for now. We can omit from our projections the matter of how the other so-called minorities will be accommodated within this Southern Nigeria republic.
It might be neccessary to omit how the minorities would be treated in a Southern Nigeria Republic but it would be difficult to have a Southern Nigeria Republic if the minorities are excluded.


4.02: Since the problems that accompany ethnic differences in the Nigeria we have at present have largely revolved around the dynamics between the so-called Big 3, we can project into the future and ask if the Big 2 of Southern Nigeria will experience greater amity once the Hausa are out of the picture.
They might but what of those in between the two majorites, would majority rule be acceptable to the minorities that waits to be seen from the Nigerian scenario.


The only truly useful answer to this question is the one that allows for uncomfortable truths.

5.00: We have not looked at religion yet but, since this plays a large part in the lives of our people, since in fact, a large part of the character is formed by the religion one adheres to, we should look at how religious differences will play a part in the prospective adventure that has been named the Republic of Southern Nigeria (apologies if I have got the name wrong).
The issue of religion redirects us to the Punjab or Afghan issues but I suspect they could be abridged ethnically since religious practices seem to be distributed evenly in Southern Nigeria.


5.01: For a start, Yoruba Muslims, of which there are tens of millions, have more in common with Hausa Muslims than they do with an Igbo Christians...an inconvenient truth that those whose true purpose may actually be the gradual dissolution of Nigeria into little chunks presently ignore when they start playing the false tunes that sing the beauty of our alleged Southern commonality.
Yoruba muslims have been able to work with Yoruba cristians so I am doubting the possibility of religion being an issue if something going wrong it would be based on ethnicity and political ideologies. It doubtful that religion can be such a big issue.


In short, this idea of a harmonious Southern Nigeria whose progress is being retarded by the alien North should be put under the classification of wishful thinking and/or fraudulent description of goods - where it belongs.

Refs:
Trouble in the Caucasus :
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl2118/stories/20040910000605700.htm
http://www.memo.ru/eng/memhrc/hotpoint.shtml
http://peacelikeariverblog.com/2007/07/bit-of-trouble-in-south-ossetia.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1999/07/990700-trouble.htm

From what I get to hear from seccetionist groups their description of the retarded South and the North's role differ, but some do not even believe in a Southern Nigeria or that the South is also free from any blames.

I will be back I have things to attend to. Sorry for any typos I have got to catch up with something else.

Alata
Jun 28, 2008, 01:53 PM
Oluku mi,
you need to get back on the side you have chosen to defend and present an argument that states quite clearly why the disintegration of Nigeria is the best/only solution to the problems we face at this time - as has been said many a time on this very web-site.

[/B]

Oluku mi,
my points of debate are that dissolution is the best option, not that it is the only one; that the dissolution and confederation should be scheduled immediately, not that it should start without planning or aim.

Wayfarer
Jun 28, 2008, 02:16 PM
We shouldn't talk about breaking Nigeria into ethnic enclaves until we resolve the self-hatred that festers in the hearts of many Black people.

Toku.A, in rejoining Eja's points, invoked some European countries that have broken up along ethnic lines in recent times. The problem with comparing Blacks to Whites is that, unlike Black people, White people love themselves. You need only consider the current opposition of Mugabe and the patronage of South Africa by the European Union and White Americans, to appreciate the magnitude of self-love that Whites possess.

The White Zimbabwean farmers that all of Europe is protecting are British descendants, yet all of Europe, which is composed of numerous White tribes, is united in trying to protect their Zimbabwean brothers.

Do Blacks similarly love themselves? Do Blacks defend other Blacks first and ask questions later like people of other races do? Would a Black man lie and distort the truth to protect 'his own' as is being done by Europeans with respect to Zimbabwe? Would the Yoruba man buy goods from the Igbo man rather than buy the same goods from the French man? Would the Igbo man erect high tariffs to prevent the inflow of goods from China, but favor the Ijaw man with low tariffs? Would the Ijaw man glorify the culture of the Efik man and elevate it above that of the European or the Chinese?

We remain the only race of people that hate ourselves. In my corner of the United States, the Latino politicians campaign tirelessly for Latinos. So concerted is their devotion to their Latino brethren that one could be forgiven for mistaking them for officials of the bureau of Latino affairs. Asians, Arabs and Indians similarly band together, trading among themselves and establishing enclaves that help to perpetuate their prosperity and confine it to 'their own people'.

So are we ready to practise such explicit racial associations? Are we ready to erect trade barriers, and to start embracing all that comes from people who are like us, like the other races do?

If the answer to the above questions is yes, then there is no need for Nigeria to exist for even one more day. But if the answer is no (and I firmly believe it is), then let's keep our assses in that country and invest our energies into developing our infrastructure, rather than squandering them in pointless dissections of seccessionist sentiments.

Alata
Jun 28, 2008, 02:24 PM
1.01: I am hoping with this debate to get certain things out in the open. [B]I believe, as stated earlier, that those who are calling for the disintegration of Nigeria are ones working (consciously or unconsciously) for the same forces that originally set the peoples within that geographical space on their current aimless course.

Whatever the ideologies
that put the colonial-remnant countries in Africa together.
into the geographical entities they were mapped to yesterday
capital exploitation, racism-supremacy, administrative convenience...
The issue for Africans today and tomorrow
is how to restructure these countries
into organisations that benefit and elevate Africans.



Just because we set out on our journey
in a vehicle that has proven
to be defectively manufactured,
and deceitfully sold to us, and
poorly maintained by our appointees,
does not enforce us to continue
carelessly in the same vehicle
to our very likely death.
In which case, the same vehicle
will be recycled and resold
to our children and their children, too.

Toku.A
Jun 28, 2008, 03:27 PM
Whatever the ideologies
that put the colonial-remnant countries in Africa together.
into the geographical entities they were mapped to yesterday
capital exploitation, racism-supremacy, administrative convenience...
The issue for Africans today and tomorrow
is how to restructure these countries
into organisations that benefit and elevate Africans.



Just because we set out on our journey
in a vehicle that has proven
to be defectively manufactured,
and deceitfully sold to us, and
poorly maintained by our appointees,
does not enforce us to continue
carelessly in the same vehicle
to our very likely death.
In which case, the same vehicle
will be recycled and resold
to our children and their children, too.

Iyaalata

Sorry the quote you were replying to is Eja's I made a mistake in not separating it from mine . I need to redo my post, but have in mind all numbered posts are Eja's

Alata
Jun 28, 2008, 03:36 PM
We shouldn't talk about breaking Nigeria into ethnic enclaves until we resolve the self-hatred that festers in the hearts of many Black people.

So the question is, are we ready to practise such explicit racial associations? Are we ready to erect trade barriers, and to start embracing all that comes from people who are like us, like the other races do?

You have gone even deeper into the koko oro (true talk, the heart of the matter) than I did in my debate submissions.

I am not one who thinks that societies happen by accident. We have to plan for and be prepared to protect the societies we want. But we cannot be sure our plans or preparations will be the best we could have done.

Nigeria presents us with an eagle and egg situation.

The eagle is Nigeria. It is sickly and it is pregnant. it thinks it can heal quicker by aborting its eggs. It thinks if its eggs hatch, they will be stolen or that the young will challenge it for resources rather than fend for themselves. On hatching, it places its eggs among chickens, and tells them "little chickens, fear to fly because you will not go far!"

The eggs are the African tribes. They are concerned for their present as the sickly eagle may die before they hatch and fly. They are concerned for their future for the sickly eagle is wandering from snakes to vultures, seeking remedies from those who will consume eagle and egg, dead or alive.

Toku.A
Jun 28, 2008, 03:47 PM
We shouldn't talk about breaking Nigeria into ethnic enclaves until we resolve the self-hatred that festers in the hearts of many Black people.

Toku.A, in rejoining Eja's points, invoked some European countries that have broken up along ethnic lines in recent times. The problem with comparing Blacks to Whites is that, unlike Black people, White people love themselves. You need only consider the current opposition of Mugabe and the patronage of South Africa by the European Union and White Americans, to appreciate the magnitude of self-love that Whites possess.

The White Zimbabwean farmers that all of Europe is protecting are British descendants, yet all of Europe, which is composed of numerous White tribes, is united in trying to protect their Zimbabwean brothers.

Do Blacks similarly love themselves? Do Blacks defend other Blacks first and ask questions later like people of other races do? Would a Black man lie and distort the truth to protect 'his own' as is being done by Europeans with respect to Zimbabwe? Would the Yoruba man buy goods from the Igbo man rather than buy the same goods from the French man? Would the Igbo man erect high tariffs to prevent the inflow of goods from China, but favor the Ijaw man with low tariffs? Would the Ijaw man glorify the culture of the Efik man and elevate it above that of the European or the Chinese?

We remain the only race of people that hate ourselves. In my corner of the United States, the Latino politicians campaign tirelessly for Latinos. So concerted is their devotion to their Latino brethren that one could be forgiven for mistaking them for officials of the bureau of Latino affairs. Asians, Arabs and Indians similarly band together, trading among themselves and establishing enclaves that help to perpetuate their prosperity and confine it to 'their own people'.

So are we ready to practise such explicit racial associations? Are we ready to erect trade barriers, and to start embracing all that comes from people who are like us, like the other races do?

If the answer to the above questions is yes, then there is no need for Nigeria to exist for even one more day. But if the answer is no (and I firmly believe it is), then let's keep our assses in that country and invest our energies into developing our infrastructure, rather than squandering them in pointless dissections of seccessionist sentiments.

I do not think the scenario you presented is typical to the Africans at the beginning the Portugese always gave the other Europeans wrong maps and they were unable to navigate their way outside Europe. The Italians were the next to leave the European continent and some accounts claim they were shown the way to other continents by Africans. Through the Church and their scientists they made other Europeans believe that any atempt to navigate outside the Mediteranea would lead to sure death because the earth was flat. It was only after 'discoveries' where made by chance and the Portugese and Italians began to meet fierce competition from the English, French, and Germans, that agreements were reached between the different Europeans Countries. It was not love but the likely loss For example in Ethiopia and Somalia there were the English and Italians competing for control in Togo the Germans and French they were about to lose everything and that was what made them to reach out for agreements that would be acceptable for all. The examples you made of Latinos and Arabs are examples of allied interests I do not think many Africans have touched on those areas that is the problem I see, because if it was all about love remember Saddam, Lebanon, the Sunni-Shia, Kurds etc, there are problems everywhere.

I did use European but that was so that I could maintain the balance Eja who started the debate on the "folly of disintegration" was using European examples to make his points against disintegration as a debater on the other side of the Isle I decided to make use of the same examples too.

Toku.A
Jun 28, 2008, 03:50 PM
I will make my posts on 5.2- on Monday, till then have a happy weekend

Wayfarer
Jun 29, 2008, 05:53 PM
Nigeria presents us with an eagle and egg situation.

The eagle is Nigeria. It is sickly and it is pregnant. it thinks it can heal quicker by aborting its eggs. It thinks if its eggs hatch, they will be stolen or that the young will challenge it for resources rather than fend for themselves. On hatching, it places its eggs among chickens, and tells them "little chickens, fear to fly because you will not go far!"

The eggs are the African tribes. They are concerned for their present as the sickly eagle may die before they hatch and fly. They are concerned for their future for the sickly eagle is wandering from snakes to vultures, seeking remedies from those who will consume eagle and egg, dead or alive.

iyaalata,

Interesting analogy, but I see one small problem. In the case of Nigeria, the eggs actually hold the key to the fate of the eagle, not the other way round. The eggs will actually determine where the eagle should fly, whether they should fly with the eagle or dispense with the eagle and pursue their own destiny. The eggs, in the case with Nigeria, actually have the power to prevent the eagle from seeking relief from the snakes and vultures that will consume them whole.

Therein lies our predicament in the issue of seccession and dissolution. You see, the thought keeps gnawing at me that the development that proponents of separation claim would come after we separate, would have manifested itself to some degree by now in our respective regions, despite the fact that we are currently "trapped" in Nigeria.

Now if Nigeria separated into her constituent ethnic natoins today, would the tribes now suddenly embrace the science and technology that they currently ignore as Nigerians? Would we suddenly reject the twin religious ideologies of retrogression called Islam and Christianity, and direct our focus to the communal values, dignity of labor and industry that served us so well in the past?

Would we suddenly discover honesty and transparancy in financial matters, as opposed to the culture of graft that currently hinders us?

All you have to do is to consider the pervasive poverty and stagnation that still bedivils the north, despite their hold on power practically since independence. Their control of power has not translated into a West African Dubai for their people.

Today, as Nigerians, the products of the Ijebu, the Igbo and the Okrika man are disparaged as "fake" by our own people. If we do not buy goods from the Yorubaman today because we perceive them as inferior, what makes you think we will be disposed to buy them when we no longer share the same country with Yoruba people? If the Igboman's goods are perceived as inferior today, do you think we will be any more inclined towards Igbo products when Igboland becomes Biafra?

Nobody can predict the future of course, and the direct opposite of what I am postulating could materialize if Nigeria were to break up, but this is something you should think about very carefully. If virtually all Nigerian officials are corrupt and apathetic, it seems to me that a better remedy should be activism and direct involvement on the part of Nigerians, not separation.

Understand that the nations that have broken up in recent times have achieved nothing but ethnic homogeneity. If that is what drives your quest for separation, then that is understandable. From the former Soviet Republics to the Czech republic and Slovakia to eritrea, none of these new republics have attained economic prosperity appreciably greater than they enjoyed while part of their mother nations. In the case of the former Soviet Republic and the former Czechoslovakia, their current economic performance is significantly attibutable to tourism from Europeans and Americans, as well as to Hollywood studios which have made those regions their locations of choice in recent years.

However these new republics have experieced the benefit of cultural homogeniety, and there is a lot to be said for that. In fact that would be an overriding consideration in my book, if Nigeria were not so plagued with grevious ills.

Toku.A,

I did not mean to imply that Whites do not antagonize each other, or that they are incapable of enmity. But you need only consider their coalescence under the banner of the practise a culture that just happens to be shared by Whites. By the strict definition of this culture, many Eastern European countries would be excluded from the classification 'Western'. However, the admission of some of these Eastern European countries into the European Union tells us that White people indeed love themselves very much.

Also consider the case with South Africa. These are people, majority of whom are still alive today, who subjugated Black people and proclaimed Blacks inferior to Whites. Yet many White people today flock to South Africa to engage those same Whites, not their descendants mind you, the same people who would have killed Black people less than twenty years ago if these Black people had challanged apartheid. And all the while we hear rubbish from George Bush and the British Prime Minister about justice and oppression.

And if you still doubt me, try to criticize any European country to any White person. I assure you that no matter the particular European country he is descended from, he will oppose you and will not stand there grinning and agreeing with you like many Black buffoons would do when a person of another race insults a Black African country to his face.

Alata
Jun 29, 2008, 09:38 PM
iyaalata,

The eggs, in the case with Nigeria, actually have the power to prevent the eagle from seeking relief from the snakes and vultures that will consume them whole.

Indeed. But the eagle is laying low and putting all in grave danger. It should gather its wits and soon. It has to find its strength and fly. It must be minded to nurture and protect the eggs, so that they can grow and fight as eagles. Else, they will seek to survive by hollowing out the state.
Nigeria embraces science and technology, but as a naked consumer. What it should be doing is nurturing the indigenisation and productivity of its people in all areas of knowledge.


it seems to me that a better remedy should be activism and direct involvement on the part of Nigerians, not separation.

I am advocating activism and a greater integration into the higher tribe of 'African'. There is a saying that "there is no one more imprisoned that one who thinks that they are free." Nigeria is a failure to 'Nigerians' for the same reasons why it is a 'success' for its investors: the strategic interests that created and sustain Nigeria.

At the heart of this debate is the issue of who should benefit from aggregated socio-economic activity. A merchantilist structure like Nigeria/Africa curently is, favours financial capital without regards to origin. A cooperative structure as Africans worldwide need to pursue urgently, favours social capital that generates local wealth and fighting spirit. My concern is for the good life and protection of our people. Creating multiple fronts of engagement to the 'globalisation of financial capital', with each front cooperating and competing for the right reasons, can better deliver better lives for our people, than beggardly colonial-remnant countries.


Understand that the nations that have broken up in recent times have achieved nothing but ethnic homogeneity. If that is what drives your quest for separation, then that is understandable.
However these new republics have experienced the benefit of cultural homogeneity, and there is a lot to be said for that. In fact that would be an overriding consideration in my book, if Nigeria were not so plagued with grevious ills..
To explain the power of 'ethnic or cultural homogeneity' it may help to think of an ethnic group as a widely extended family. Whatever attacks the family must be fought. Just like no family is self-sufficient, so must any ethnic nation seek economy and society beyond itself.
I do not seek separation for the sake of mono-ethnicity. That is impossible and undesirable. Nigeria should be dissolved because it persists by making war on some of its own people. It seeks to erase the ethnic-cultural memories of many families that it hosts and to create for them identities that are alien and defeatist. Nigeria may be reaching the limits of tolerance of its failings. It will do well to help its people be more proud in asserting their ethnicity and culture.

Toku.A
Jun 30, 2008, 12:08 PM
iyaalata,

Interesting analogy, but I see one small problem. In the case of Nigeria, the eggs actually hold the key to the fate of the eagle, not the other way round. The eggs will actually determine where the eagle should fly, whether they should fly with the eagle or dispense with the eagle and pursue their own destiny. The eggs, in the case with Nigeria, actually have the power to prevent the eagle from seeking relief from the snakes and vultures that will consume them whole.

Therein lies our predicament in the issue of seccession and dissolution. You see, the thought keeps gnawing at me that the development that proponents of separation claim would come after we separate, would have manifested itself to some degree by now in our respective regions, despite the fact that we are currently "trapped" in Nigeria.

Now if Nigeria separated into her constituent ethnic natoins today, would the tribes now suddenly embrace the science and technology that they currently ignore as Nigerians? Would we suddenly reject the twin religious ideologies of retrogression called Islam and Christianity, and direct our focus to the communal values, dignity of labor and industry that served us so well in the past?

Would we suddenly discover honesty and transparancy in financial matters, as opposed to the culture of graft that currently hinders us?

All you have to do is to consider the pervasive poverty and stagnation that still bedivils the north, despite their hold on power practically since independence. Their control of power has not translated into a West African Dubai for their people.

Today, as Nigerians, the products of the Ijebu, the Igbo and the Okrika man are disparaged as "fake" by our own people. If we do not buy goods from the Yorubaman today because we perceive them as inferior, what makes you think we will be disposed to buy them when we no longer share the same country with Yoruba people? If the Igboman's goods are perceived as inferior today, do you think we will be any more inclined towards Igbo products when Igboland becomes Biafra?

Nobody can predict the future of course, and the direct opposite of what I am postulating could materialize if Nigeria were to break up, but this is something you should think about very carefully. If virtually all Nigerian officials are corrupt and apathetic, it seems to me that a better remedy should be activism and direct involvement on the part of Nigerians, not separation.

Understand that the nations that have broken up in recent times have achieved nothing but ethnic homogeneity. If that is what drives your quest for separation, then that is understandable. From the former Soviet Republics to the Czech republic and Slovakia to eritrea, none of these new republics have attained economic prosperity appreciably greater than they enjoyed while part of their mother nations. In the case of the former Soviet Republic and the former Czechoslovakia, their current economic performance is significantly attibutable to tourism from Europeans and Americans, as well as to Hollywood studios which have made those regions their locations of choice in recent years.

However these new republics have experieced the benefit of cultural homogeniety, and there is a lot to be said for that. In fact that would be an overriding consideration in my book, if Nigeria were not so plagued with grevious ills.

Toku.A,

I did not mean to imply that Whites do not antagonize each other, or that they are incapable of enmity. But you need only consider their coalescence under the banner of the practise a culture that just happens to be shared by Whites. By the strict definition of this culture, many Eastern European countries would be excluded from the classification 'Western'. However, the admission of some of these Eastern European countries into the European Union tells us that White people indeed love themselves very much.

Also consider the case with South Africa. These are people, majority of whom are still alive today, who subjugated Black people and proclaimed Blacks inferior to Whites. Yet many White people today flock to South Africa to engage those same Whites, not their descendants mind you, the same people who would have killed Black people less than twenty years ago if these Black people had challanged apartheid. And all the while we hear rubbish from George Bush and the British Prime Minister about justice and oppression.

And if you still doubt me, try to criticize any European country to any White person. I assure you that no matter the particular European country he is descended from, he will oppose you and will not stand there grinning and agreeing with you like many Black buffoons would do when a person of another race insults a Black African country to his face.


Wayfarer

I do not doubt you but I see it more like allied interests and not a culture. For example, most whites condemn Hitler and his Nazi governemnt so there is an example of whites going against another white Country or governemnt so I do not think it would be right to say a racial culture of love exists between them. If I would suggest a middle path between our two views, I think it is a culture of accomodating the interests of the different groups and buiding combined interests. If we look down in History Eastern Europe have always had different parts as members of 'white' organisations either in the Roman Empire, Prussia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire etc, so the EU will not be the first time they are admitted, but do you know even Countries we call core European Countries like Greece, or Italy had times when they were not taken to be European or 'white'.
_________________________

[QUOTE=Eja;4295061153]6.00: Before I go on, I would like to invite the reader to go back to the first part of this submission and look again at Paragraphs [3.010] and [3.011].

6.01: Adapt the questions to your own indigenous region and as you do so, imagine that these are the inner thoughts of the most incorrigible ethnic chauvinist you know of. Imagine this because when the time is right, these are the types of questions that will be used to set up as wide a conflagration as we have never seen.

6.02: We should always keep in mind that the easiest mass-emotion to stir up is that which speaks to the inner chauvinist in us all. The easiest thing to do, when times get rough, is to get people to agree that it is all somebody else's fault and that they must pay (the lousy foreigners!).
6.03: Yes; when we are all sovereign nations, we shall then be at liberty to sign military alliance treaties with 'helpful' nations like France, Britain, the USA (and maybe even China). We shall then all be free to invite 'advisers' who will tell us how best to use whatever 'mineral wealth' we possess to ensure our safety from rapacious neighbours and the possibly treacherous minorities that we have within our sovereign borders.

6.04: France already has military 'advisers' stationed in Chad and Gabon. The UK is in Sierra Leone and the USA has its own Sao Tome to play with [Refs].

How quick will these countries be to offer their 'assistance' to the paranoid (yet endowed) Sovereign Republics of Lagos, Oyo, Bayelsa, Ikwerre, Biafra, Arewa, and all the others that will be formed from what is currently called the middle-belt?

And we should not forget later Republics like that of the Ijebu and Ekiti...

Actually Eja I see you doing the same but the conditions you mention are already existing in Nigeria so if these are reasons to prevent new nations they may also be reasons to prevent Nigeria from existing.


7.00: Humans have moved along. There are things we know now about ourselves and about our neighbours that our ancestors did not know. Yet, the sad hard truth is that for more than a few of us, interfacing with the reality that confronts us is still governed by the same thought patterns that led our ancestors into making their most grievous mistakes.
We are ignorant than our ancestors.


7.01: It was the inability to see beyond their identities as citizens of Ijebu, Ibadan, Ekiti, Ijaye, Ilorin etc. that led to the Yoruba losing not only territory but also many lives and eventually, their sovereignty.

7.02: It was the inability of those they confronted to see beyond their identities as citizens of Eko, Benin, Aro, Bonny, Lokoja, Kano etc. that enabled the British, with a few hundred 'white' soldiers, to become the overlords of the millions for whom, right up until (and even after) they lost title to their own lands, still perceived the ones who lived next door as being the greatest threat to their freedom.
It was more of refusing to give freedoms the people wanted to them so they refused to fight for the freedom of their Countries.


8.01: The British played us off one against the other, used us as soldiers against each other, and at the end of it all, had us locked into the prison plantation that was given the name Nigeria by a whore.
This would be blaming people unneccessarily if Nigeria is a prison plantation named by a whore may be it will be best to release the prsion inmates.

8.02: We have rightly identified selfishness as being the motive that led the British into manufacturing Nigeria. We have had cause many times to regret the fate that led us to this current state. This is no different from one who having endured much suffering, regrets being born. However, since it is not possible to return to the womb (talk less of returning to the state of lone spermatozoa and lone egg), one is then faced with two options : to end ones life or, to seek a way to overcome the difficulties, and then to thrive.

Nigeria has been described as the marriage no one wants but no one wants to dissolve. I would say that Nigeria is the marriage whose dissolution will bring about the certain ruination of all parties - the type of divorce where the biggest winners are the divorce lawyers.
The divorce lawyers make some benefit from any divorce but their benefits are always increased or reduced by the married pair, and the judges. Most couples that intend to make the best out of a bad situation are always do so with consideration for their enstranged partners.


9.00: We have assumed that the existence of what is called 'militancy' in the Niger Delta, the levels of insecurity in parts of the country and the seeming incompatibility of 'liberal' south with "Sharia North" gives truth to the prediction first made by the all-knowing American State Department that Nigeria is doomed to become a 'failed State' in the near future.

9.01: It is a testament to the power of propaganda that this prediction, made without much fanfare several years ago but, repeated often enough in the right places, has now become (in the minds of some Nigerians) something that has the prophetic force of an utterance made by an infallible oracle. It has in fact become a part of the language we use when we talk of our homeland amongst ourselves.
We should be able to accept the message even if we do not like the messenger. Nigeria had a civil war with far less abuses than we have currently and from that it is reasonable to expect Nigeria would be a failed state or disintegrate in the future.


9.02: One more example of how easily we allow others to create definitions (and the realities that follow) for us.

9.03: Some who parrot this prediction have probably forgotten who first issued it, while others have not asked why India, like Nigeria, once a technologically backward country with the same cultural, religious and ethnic fissures, did not become a failed state.
If I may borrow your language those that parrot the falsehood or folly of this prediction forget that unlike Nigeria India already had the right bonding even before 'colonialism', and most of India's divisions are because of religious ideologies which are considered to be retrogressive, if India is able to control the religious fissures she has a greater chance than the Nigerian state e.g People feel handicapped because of the caste system that was created through religious ideologies, if there is an acceptable level of development for those in the lower castes and the system is broken they have better possibilities of nationhood than Nigeria.


9.04: Why India, in spite of full-blown insurgencies that have lasted for decades in several of its regions, did not descend into full chaos but instead managed (while seeking resolutions to its several fissures) to lift several millions of its citizens up from relative deprivation into a better standard of living.

In other words, the same ingredients that exist in melting pot Nigeria also exist in melting pot India. Why then is it agreed by some of us that unlike the Indians, we are not capable of growing into nationhood?
It is not quite the case. The improvement of living standards and the reduction of deprivation in most of India have not solved the Indian problem most of which is mainly a religious one.


10.00: Perhaps we speak of ending the Nigeria project because we have decided that our 'leaders' have tried and failed for 48 years to build a truly united country....but is this true? Did they really try to build a united country...and more to the point, have we actually ever had Nigerian leaders?
The point may be if we can ever have Nigerian leaders. People find difficult to believe that can ever happen that is why they believe in full disintegration or a partial one in the form of a confedration.


10.01: I would answer this last question by saying "no". The label "Nigerian leader" has been a mask that has been worn by various compradors and 'tribal' leaders/warlords with low mentalities who planted themselves in various high places.
Quite right but can we have never had untribal leaders in the various high places, and after 48 years it is too good to be true that we would have such leaders in high places.


10.021: Again: we have never had Nigerian leaders; we have never had ones in power who sought to build a united and autonomously prosperous Nigeria, therefore, we have not failed at building a united and autonomously prosperous Nigeria.
Nigeria is a puzzle but people that claim to be Nigerian leaders and detribalised want to build the picture by ignoring the pieces, the pieces need to be built not then picture would be seen.


10.022: The option of success or failure is only available to those who attempt.

10.023: Our so-called leaders have failed to attempt.

The leaders attempted but in the wrong way.


10.024: The failure to attempt on their part is a sectional failure and, a sectional failure, especially in an organism that was never integrated is not necessarily a precursor to wholesale systemic failure.
Like in 10.023 they attempted wrongly and that led to the wholesale faliure.


10.03: The Nigerian nation is not a doomed nation because the Nigerian nation is yet to be created.
The Nigerian nation is a doomed nation because no one is interested in its creation.


11.00: The best metaphor that describes what has been going on is as follows :

A man gets a piece of land to build on.

He gets the blocks and all other materials required for the erection of his house. He has the workmen skilled at putting all this material together at hand and, he has the funds to pay them. However, because it would be more immediately pleasurable for him to fritter away the money at a nearby bar/whore-house, that is what he does - every day at sunset, he goes into the bar and whiles away time and money while the materials and workmen remain on stand-by.

In the morning, just as the sun rises, he stumbles out, beholds his pile of bricks, roofing material...etc. and cries to heaven that he is still without a house to call his own.

He blames the witch who cursed his lineage and he blames the 'greedy' workmen who have refused to labour until they are payed. Then he collapses beside a pile of bricks and falls asleep until evening when he returns to the bar....and so the cycle repeats.

This is what Nigeria has been so far

12.00: It is true that the British imperialists left us without a usable structure, however, we had all that was necessary - we still have all that is required - but so far, we have done little but take our immediate pleasure with what we should be building with. So now, we do not have a house built on faulty foundations, we do not have a house wired wrongly and, we do not have a house with a terrible paint-job.

12.01: What we call Nigeria can be likened to a pile of bricks sitting and waiting to be put to good use.

Your description of Nigeria is quite telling but I do not think the workmen would put up with a man that refuses to build his house. They would hang around for a while and look for other places to put their skills to good use that is why Nigeria is a project that would fail.


13.00: Nigeria needs restructuring - yes! But the conversation on how best to do this has too often seen reasonable postulates on the efficacy of options like confederation being blended in with arguments that speak of the necessity to dissolve Nigeria and, this blending is often done with a level of skill commensurate with what can be observed when an experienced painter goes from dark grey to black on the same canvas.
The unionist often prices on his taste but the skilled painter knows there are many galleries around.


13.01: It should be noted that the type of restructuring that brings forth a confederation does not automatically equate to the creation of sovereign countries. Confederations have a common centre - only that this centre is not as domineering as what holds in a unitary state.

13.02: Sovereign countries on the other hand may be allies with common interests but, such common interests do not provide the same binding force as what exists when there is a common centre.

14.00: It is customary, as said before, that ones who wish to speed up the disintegration of Nigeria will point at what transpired in Yugoslavia or the USSR. In my opinion, such non-contextual reliance on the history of others as a predictor of our future is not only a guaranteed misleader, it is also an indicator of limited expectations.
Even if the history of Yugoslavia and the USSR are ignored Nigeria also shows that it is impossible to maintain the unity of a State against the wishes of its citizens.


14.01: It would be more fitting to what we know of our people's innate talents, to expect that Nigeria can do something the likes of which the world has never seen before...in other words, rather than us pointing at convenient portions of Soviet history and saying "Look at what happened there...", we should be working at the creation of something that will make future generations say "Why can't we do something that resembles what the Nigerians did?"
For us to create this unique thing, we have to set at the task before us with a clear picture in mind of where we are and, of the assumptions that are shaping our ideas regarding where we ought to be heading (and how).

Refs: Some Euro/American armed forces currently active in West Africa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/25/westafrica.sierraleone
http://allafrica.com/stories/200709170011.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2210571.stm
http://www.afrol.com/articles/14269
http://www.modernghana.com/news/134927/1/the-rumour-of-the-us-military-base-in-ghana.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E0DB1039F931A15756C0A9609582 60

It is good to create something future generations would point to, but I doubt Nigeria has the possibilty to create the waoh effect on staying together after refusing to strengthen the nations that make up Nigeria.

omaks
Jul 1, 2008, 08:41 PM
Eja,

This is a good debate topic.

Where is Bode with his blueprint? Tonsoyo, Tony, Ttonjo, Docokwy, et al?

Disintegration is definitely not the only option and there is need to be open minded to other solutions to the current impasse which may be more efficient all told. So apart from your quote below, I think I agree with the rest of your submissions.



Given the way the world works now, disintegration could be a strategic bad hand to play, but only if not handled properly. Even so, with the right combination of effective leadership skills, technocracy and good followership, 'at the end of it' some of the resulting entities may be far from what you describe...

If that be the case, would it not be much more desirable to work consciensiously at ensuring that the highlighted part of your post is entrenched in a Nigerian entity as currently obtains?

Bode Eluyera
Jul 2, 2008, 08:03 PM
iyaalata,

Interesting analogy, but I see one small problem. In the case of Nigeria, the eggs actually hold the key to the fate of the eagle, not the other way round. The eggs will actually determine where the eagle should fly, whether they should fly with the eagle or dispense with the eagle and pursue their own destiny. The eggs, in the case with Nigeria, actually have the power to prevent the eagle from seeking relief from the snakes and vultures that will consume them whole.

Therein lies our predicament in the issue of secession and dissolution. You see, the thought keeps gnawing at me that the development that proponents of separation claim would come after we separate, would have manifested itself to some degree by now in our respective regions, despite the fact that we are currently "trapped" in Nigeria.

Now if Nigeria separated into her constituent ethnic nations today, would the tribes now suddenly embrace the science and technology that they currently ignore as Nigerians? Would we suddenly reject the twin religious ideologies of retrogression called Islam and Christianity, and direct our focus to the communal values, dignity of labor and industry that served us so well in the past?

Would we suddenly discover honesty and transparancy in financial matters, as opposed to the culture of graft that currently hinders us?

All you have to do is to consider the pervasive poverty and stagnation that still bedivils the north, despite their hold on power practically since independence. Their control of power has not translated into a West African Dubai for their people.

Today, as Nigerians, the products of the Ijebu, the Igbo and the Okrika man are disparaged as "fake" by our own people. If we do not buy goods from the Yorubaman today because we perceive them as inferior, what makes you think we will be disposed to buy them when we no longer share the same country with Yoruba people? If the Igboman's goods are perceived as inferior today, do you think we will be any more inclined towards Igbo products when Igboland becomes Biafra?

Nobody can predict the future of course, and the direct opposite of what I am postulating could materialize if Nigeria were to break up, but this is something you should think about very carefully. If virtually all Nigerian officials are corrupt and apathetic, it seems to me that a better remedy should be activism and direct involvement on the part of Nigerians, not separation.

Understand that the nations that have broken up in recent times have achieved nothing but ethnic homogeneity. If that is what drives your quest for separation, then that is understandable. From the former Soviet Republics to the Czech republic and Slovakia to eritrea, none of these new republics have attained economic prosperity appreciably greater than they enjoyed while part of their mother nations. In the case of the former Soviet Republic and the former Czechoslovakia, their current economic performance is significantly attibutable to tourism from Europeans and Americans, as well as to Hollywood studios which have made those regions their locations of choice in recent years.

However these new republics have experieced the benefit of cultural homogeniety, and there is a lot to be said for that. In fact that would be an overriding consideration in my book, if Nigeria were not so plagued with grevious ills.

Toku.A,

I did not mean to imply that Whites do not antagonize each other, or that they are incapable of enmity. But you need only consider their coalescence under the banner of the practise a culture that just happens to be shared by Whites. By the strict definition of this culture, many Eastern European countries would be excluded from the classification 'Western'. However, the admission of some of these Eastern European countries into the European Union tells us that White people indeed love themselves very much.

Also consider the case with South Africa. These are people, majority of whom are still alive today, who subjugated Black people and proclaimed Blacks inferior to Whites. Yet many White people today flock to South Africa to engage those same Whites, not their descendants mind you, the same people who would have killed Black people less than twenty years ago if these Black people had challanged apartheid. And all the while we hear rubbish from George Bush and the British Prime Minister about justice and oppression.

And if you still doubt me, try to criticize any European country to any White person. I assure you that no matter the particular European country he is descended from, he will oppose you and will not stand there grinning and agreeing with you like many Black buffoons would do when a person of another race insults a Black African country to his face.

YOU CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE: ALL YOU NEED IS APPROPRIATE INFORMATION AND GOOD ANALYTIC SKILLS.

I respect your opinion, at the same time, to be honest with you, most of your arguments are FLAWED.

You are mixing up a lot of things. In addition, I think that you are bringing up issues that have already been adressed in my articles - "Oodua Republic: To be or not to be? and "One Nig/geria: To be or not to be? (parts 1-6). In other to avoid writing an article here or repeating most of the things in my article, if you don't mind, I would rather recommend that you take your time and read those articles. I am sure you will get better explanation and answers to your questions and remarks. In those articles, I gave reasons why I am CONVINCED BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBTS that if we can get rid of the unproductive north, our pace/rate of development will increase at least 20 times. I also gave reasons why I am convinced that with the present political structure, which the north will NEVER allow us to change, we will continue to be ruled by CORRUPT, INCOMPETENT, VISIONLESS AND MORALLY BANKRUPT NORTHERN CIVILIANS AND RETIRED CRIMINAL OFFICERS LIKE BUHARI, SHAGARI, GOWON, BABANGIDA, ABACHA, MURTALA, ABDULLSALAM, YARADUA AND OTHERS. NOTHING IS GOIN TO CHANGE. WE WILL CONTINUE TO GROP IN THE DARK. It will always be one step forward, 20 steps backward. The north is a parasite, liability and burden on the south. In addition, IT IS A CLOG IN THE WHEEL OF PROGRESS. These people have no where to go, and they are holding us down. If we don't get rid of them NOW, WE ARE DOOMED. TAKE IT FROM ME.

You have taken it upon yourself to comment on the former Soviet Union. Have you ever been to Russia or any of the former republics before? You might want to check the map of the former S.U. there are 3 countries very close the Scandinavian countries called Estonia, Latvia and Litvia, they are all referred to as Prebaltic countries. Now listen to this: These countries will NEVER exchange their freedom for &100 trillions from Russia. They are happy to rule over themselves - make their own laws, develop their language and culture. Turkmenistan is another gas rich former Soviet republic. Today, the citizens get their country's gas FOR FREE. Part 7 or 8 of my article will exploit in details the benefits all the former Soviet republics are getting/enjoying after becoming sovereign countries. My personal experience in Russia is an additional and strong conviction that the Yorubas need their own country.


What you, and many others also fail to understand is the fact that when people like me advocate for a break up, and the emergence of Oodua republic, the issue is much more than MONEY. Economic prosperity is just one major part. Economic prosperity is TANGIBLE. But, there are other equally very important INTANGIBLE reasons for demanding for Oodua republic. WE NEED TO DEVELOP OUR LANGUAGE AND CULTURE. WE JUST WANT TO RULE OVER OURSELVES! We don't want any Yaradua, Buhari or Atiku to rule over us. This has nothing to do with tribalism, but more to do with self-interest and CULTURAL AWARENESS. Unfortunately, this is not possible or attainable within Nig-geria. If you have lived all your live only in english speaking countries, I am afraid that it will be very difficult for you to understand my position. The Yorubas need their own country to retain OUR IDENTITY, CULTURE AND LANGUAGE. I can't understand why it is a crime for the Yorubas with a population of more than 40 million to have their own country?

Finally, I want to remind you of the fact that if not for the British, the south/Yorubas would NEVER have been in the same country with the north! If not for the British, the north would NEVER have FREE and UNLIMITED ACCESS to the oil in the Niger delta. We are INCOMPACTIBLE with the north practically in all aspects. WE HAVE NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, IN COMMON WITH THE DESCENDANTS OF USMAN DAN FODIO! IT'S HIGH TIME WE CORRECTED THIS HISTORICAL TRAGEDY.

WE HAVE TRIED NIG*GERIA FOR 50 YEARS, LET US NOW TRY OODUA REPUBLIC FOR ANOTHER 50 YEARS PLEASE. AFTER ALL, MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE BY FORCE. ONE NIG/GERIA IS NOT IN THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, MILITARY AND CULTURAL INTERESTS OF THE YORUBAS. WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH RESOURCES TO FORM A STRONG, PROSPEROUS, PEACEFUL AND DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. WE DON'T NEED YARADUA TO DO THAT FOR US. WE ARE BLESSED PEOPLE. ONE NIG-GERIA BENEFITS ONLY THE NORTH. THAT EXPLAINS THE REASON WHY THEY ARE READY TO GO TO ANY LENGTH TO KEEEP NIG-GERIA ONE.

P.S.

EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT POSTS LIKE YOURS USUALLY COME FROM PEOPLE WHO NEED ONE NIG-GERIA, AND ARE 'AFRAID' TO STAND ON THEIR OWN. LET EVERYBODY USE THEIR 'OWN' RESOURCES TO DEVELOP THEIR TERRITORY. SORRY, BUT THERE IS NO MORE FREE LUNCHES!!! DEATH TO NIG/GERIA!!!!/B]
_________________________
_________________________

Eja,

This is a good debate topic.

Where is Bode with his blueprint? Tonsoyo, Tony, Ttonjo, Docokwy, et al?

Disintegration is definitely not [B]the only option and there is need to be open minded to other solutions to the current impasse which may be more efficient all told. So apart from your quote below, I think I agree with the rest of your submissions.



Given the way the world works now, disintegration could be a strategic bad hand to play, but only if not handled properly. Even so, with the right combination of effective leadership skills, technocracy and good followership, 'at the end of it' some of the resulting entities may be far from what you describe...

YES, DISINTEGRATION IS NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION, BUT IT IS "THE BEST" SOLUTION FOR THE YORUBAS!!!! MOREOVER, MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE VOLUNTARY, AND NOT BY FORCE.

WE ARE JUST GOING IN CIRCLES.

My articles, "Oodua republic: To be or not to be?" and "One Nig/geria: To be or not to be? (parts 1-6)" I believe, are MORE THAN EXPLANATORY ENOUGH. PLEASE READ THOSE ARTICLES CAREFULLY AND WITH AN OPEN MIND. I argued in part 4 of my article that THE PRESENT POLITICAL STRUCTURE WILL NEVER ALLOW US TO CHOOSE COMPETENT LEADERS, AND THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE RULED BY INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT, VISIONLESS AND MORALLY BANKRUPT NORTHERN CIVILIANS AND RETIRED CRIMINAL OFFICERS AT LEAST FOR ANOTHER 25 YEARS.

This post reminds me of my discussion with my best Yoruba friend in Russia, who keeps on begging me to please devote my resources and energy to finding ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS. But, I keep on telling him that BREAKING UP IS THE BEST OPTION FOR THE YORUBAS. Sometimes, I just pity him. Unlike him, I am not emotional about the issue. I take the facts and analyse them objectively. Some people are against the break up of Nig/geria for their emotional and/or selfish reasons.

Let me repeat again for the nth time. THE BEST OPTION FOR THE YORUBAS IS TO BREAK UP AND FORM THEIR OWN COUNTRY. ONE NIG=GERIA IS 'NOT' IN OUR INTEREST. WE WILL BE MUCH BETTER OFF WITHOUT THE NORTH.

We need a country where the president will adress George Bush, Brown and others IN YORUBA, AND NOT IN ENGLISH!!! WE NEED OUR OWN COUNTRY IN ORDER TO PROTECT AND DEVELOP OUR LANGUAGE AND CULTURE. Have you ever heard the German Chancellor speaking Japanese or Portuguese to Germans? I have NEVER heard Russian president speaking neither Spanish or English to Russians. WE NEED OUR OWN OODUA REPUBLIC WHERE THE PRESIDENT OF OODUA REPUBLIC WILL ADRESS THE YORUBAS ONLY IN ENGLISH, AND NOT IN ENGLISH, A COLONIAL LANGUAGE. This is about cultural awareness. I have it. I am sorry if you don't have it. My coming to Russia has strengtened this awareness in me. If you guys are happy that English, a colonial language, is the ONLY OFFICIAL language in Nig-geria, with a population of 140 million, sorry I am not. I WANT MY MOTHER TONGUE TO BE THE ONLY OFFICIAL LANGUAGE IN MY COUNTRY, AND NOT ENGLISH. WE NEED OUR OWN COUNTRY WHERE THE YORUBAS WILL BE THE OVERWHELMING HOMOGEINOUS MAJORITY.

In order for you to understand the CONCORTION called Nig-geria, try to imagine that Germany, Britain, France and Portugal are one country. YORUBAS ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE HAUSAS AND FULANI IN EVERYTHING.

I am afraid you are confusing or mixing up what integration, especially in Europe is all about. In any case, even if you are an advocate of integration, don't you think that it's appropriate for all the parties or stakeholders to sit down and negotiate the terms of any integration as all the respective members of the European Union did? Are you aware of the fact that as far as Nig/geria is concerned, there has NEVER been any FORMAL discussions or negotiations on resource control, political, military, economic structures and other vital issues between the south and the north since 1960? The north just took it for granted that the south, including the oil in the Niger delta, are all its property, and is free to do and undo. They have been ruling Nig-geria right from independence! The north has continued to IGNORE all calls by the south for a SOVEREIGN NATIONAL CONFERENCE. Do you know why? Because they are COMPLETELY SATISFIED with the present political, military and economic structures that allow them to continue ruling Nig-geria till eternity, and have unlimited and free access to the oil in the name of building a 'fake and non-existibg' one NIG*GER. Part 2 of my article "One Nig/geria: To be or not to be?" was devoted explicitly to this issue.

Now let me ask you another question. Would you want to have an UNSINCERE person as your business partner? I am doubly sure that you don't. One of the main reasons why I am for the break up of Nig/Gia is that THE NORTH IS NOT SINCERE, AND JUST USES ONE NIG-GERIA TO STEAL OUR RESOURCES IN THE SOUTH. They are not committed to Nig=geria. I devoted part 6 of my article completely to the INSINCERITY of the north. THE ONLY INTEREST THE NORTH HAS IN NIG/GERIA IS THE OIL!!! If they had the oil, they would had got rid of the south LONG LONG LONG TIME AGO!!!THIS IS THE BITTER TRUTH. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. THIS IS THE BEST TIME FOR US TO GET RID OF THEM. CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE YORUBAS OR THE SOUTH IS BENEFITTING FOR HAVING THE POOR AND BACKWARD NORTH IN THE SAME COUNTRY WITH THEM? ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE 'WHOLE' OF THE NORTH TO NIG&GERIA'S ECONOMY IS LESS THAN 10%.

BUT IF YOU ARE SO MUCH CONCERED ABOUT NIG/GERIA BREAKING UP, JUST TRY TO IMAGINE THAT THE YORUBAS WERE COLONISED SEPERATELY BY THE BRITISH, AND DID NOT MERGE US WITH THE DESCENDANTS OF USMAN DAN FODIO. I AM SURE YOU WILL FEEL MUCH BETTER AFTER THIS THOUGHT. A BEG LET THE NORTH GO, WE WON'T MISS THEM. LET THEM GO AND FORM ONE COUNTRY WITH THEIR BROTHERS IN NIGER REPUBLIC, CHAD, SUDAN AND SOMALIA. CAN'T YOU SEE THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT ARE DESPERATE TO KEEP NIG.GERIA ONE? THAT REALLY SAYS A LOT ABOUT THEM.
_________________________
_________________________

If the oil were in the North

By Tonye David-West, Jr., Ph.D

Have you ever imagined if Nigeria's oil and main foreign exchange earner were in the north? Have you ever thought of what would happen if the north had all the resources and the south was as arid as the desert? Have you ever thought of what would happen if the north had all the intellectuals and the south had the uneducated population? Have you ever thought of what would happen if the north had all the industries and the know-how and the south all the beggars? Have you ever thought of what would happen if the Liquefied Natural Gas was in the north? Have you ever thought of what would happen if the north had absolute control of Nigeria's resources in terms of location? Have you sat down to contemplate these questions?


The Nigerian Defense Academy [NDA] is currently in the north [Kaduna], and we have seen how rare defense installations are in the south. Can we expect a similar trend if the oil were in the north? What can we really expect if the north had the knife and the yam, that is, the political leadership and at the same time the oil wealth ON ITS SOIL? Southerners for the past thirty years of northern leadership have to some degree continued to remind the north that the oil is on their soil and as such revenue allocations and concessions must be given to the south. But imagine for a brief second if both power and the oil wealth were in the north---what would happen to the south? How about the north? Even now, the oil proceeds are drawn from the south to develop the north----but just imagine if they had the oil right there in the north which would reduce or eliminate the agitation of southerners for concessions and special allocations. What then would happen to the south? Consider the following;


It [the north] would be paradise and the streets would be made of gold but the streets in the south would be made of mud. They would literally pave a road to heaven and charge souls of southerners on their way to heaven a hefty fee for plying their road;

The oil money would be used to create an ocean in the north, however artificial;

They would call it "REGIONAL RESOURCES" not "NATIONAL RESOURCES";

There would never be a scarcity of fuel in the north, but lots of it in the south;

The southerners would be treated as foreigners more than they are being treated now;

There would be viable infrastructures all over the north and the south, just ramshackled ones;

They would fight for a 50% revenue allocation for each of their oil producing states;

The only pipes that would run from the north to the south would not contain oil but TOXIC MATERIALS;

There would be no refineries in the south as they would say, "NO OIL MEANS---NO NEED FOR REFINERIES";

The "Jesse" fire incident that consumed more than 700 in the Niger Delta last year would not be as there would be enough fuel for everyone;

NNPC national headquarters would be in the north;

More than 95 percent of the managing directors of NNPC would be northerners;

They would import everything-- air, food, meat, etc., with the oil money;

They would lay claim to the leadership of Nigeria more than ever before with the logic that Allah put the oil in the north so they can lead the country both politically and economically;

Qualified southerners would be expatriate workers in their country given short term contracts;

The south would look like a fig leaf, southern Sudan would look like a paradise compared to the south;

The north would continue to raise the bar so that the south would continue to be behind educationally and economically as well,

Development in the south with oil money, UNHEARD OF;

NNPC would mean--NORTHERN NIGERIAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION;

There would be more oil sheikhs in the north than there would be grains of sand in the south;

They would live, breathe and sleep oil;

Babangida would not have changed the name of the national soccer team from The GREEN EAGLES to The SUPER EAGLES as he did in 1988, he would have changed it to the SUPER OILERS OF NIGERIA, with the word "Northern" in small print right before the name "Nigeria";

All oil ministers would be northerners just as all defense ministers had been for the past 20 years;

They would have established a PETROLEUM TRUST FUND [PTF] at the time of independence in 1960 and use the fund to compliment their huge oil-producing states revenue allocation;

They would be champions of the call for a SNC as they would like to make their ever-increasing demands known;

They would declare free education for all northerners to be sponsored by their state governments while the south would continue to struggle with no money to pay even bursary awards;

They would have a powerful and an exclusive oil producing state forum in the north just like the so-called northern governor's forum;

There would be the KADUNA OIL MAFIA to compliment the political Kaduna Mafia currently in existence. The "Oil Mafia" would be the custodian of the oil wealth;

They would have since built a wall around northern Nigeria to make immigration from the south next to impossible, or "better" yet;

THEY WOULD DECLARE INDEPENDENCE AND LEAVE THE SOUTH TO WALLOW IN ITS MISERY. There would be no time for SNC talks, no time for confederacy talks, no time for referandum, just enough time to declare independence and have their oil republic without the infidels.

The Queen would build her winter get away home in Kano and a pipe would be built from the north to the south where her human waste would go directly from her water closet all the way to the south, along with all other waste of the north.
If the oil were in the north, only the divine creator can complete the list above.

Alata
Jul 2, 2008, 11:29 PM
Bode,
You are very welcome to the debate.
Please provide links to your articles. We will click through, so no need to copy & paste entire article.
You can read the debate so far in the main thread (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/crucible/73771-nigeria-folly-wisdom-disintegration-main-debate-thread.html) and post your comments in this parallel thread.

easekieled
Jul 3, 2008, 03:57 PM
...this debate is too theoritical...breaking up Nigeria is a tall dream that can only be discussed by people with too much turanci!
Its not as if they Yorubas are a united people, the Igbos are not, the Ijaw,itsekiris and the Urhobos are not either! if there is any part of Nigeria that has demonstrated some form of unity is the North!
People with too much turanci will make nnoise and so much assumption but not the liver to start up anything in the form starting a break up...so talk/write on!

Nigeria shall remain one!
"akwai ilimi ama ba wayo"
I love Nigeria

Alata
Jul 4, 2008, 10:24 AM
"akwai ilimi ama ba wayo"
I love Nigeria

Nigeria loves you too.
Does it not?

Wayfarer
Jul 4, 2008, 12:48 PM
EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT POSTS LIKE YOURS USUALLY COME FROM PEOPLE WHO NEED ONE NIG-GERIA, AND ARE 'AFRAID' TO STAND ON THEIR OWN.


First, you don't have to shout.

Second, I am not afraid to stand on my own and forge my own destiny unaided by your 'towering intellect'.

Third, you have your relationship with Nigeria all wrong. Those of us who prefer one Nigeria or a restructuring of Nigeria that stops short of dissolution, have been begging you to leave for eons. Yep, we have been fervently begging you to leave Nigeria since you find her so objectionable, but you have conveniently refused to accept our invitation.

Yet you assail this square with your interminable calls for dissolution. Why don't you just leave? Do you really need that much time to work out the details required to seccede? I challenged you and your ilk about two months ago to pack up and leave Nigeria, but being the ideological duds you are, you dodged that challenge. All you and your ilk did instead was virtually transform this square into a petri dish for culturing seccesionist propaganda.

Stand up for what you believe and implement your plan today. And if the plan is not ready, stop running your mouth about secceding and invest your efforts into perfecting your blueprint instead. Please do that so that NVS can be graced with more relevant articles rather than those from a man hell-bent on amusing himself with delusions of superiority.

I am not afraid to see you go. On the contrary, I can't wait to see you go. That way, I will be spared the aggravation of people with middling intellects telling me I am 'afraid to stand on my own'.

We've been insulted enough by you unprincipled hypocrites. If you dispise our country so much to the extent that you corrupt the spelling of the word "Nigeria", why do you still hold a Nigerian passport? Why don't you burn or discard your passport? That is what a principled person would do.

You are nothing but a faux revolutionary, the latest player in the long, inglorious tradition of kill-rape-burn-and-then-beg-for-foreign-intervention
brand of Black African freedom fighters.

If foreign agents were to deposit cash into a numbered account on your behalf, and promise you a steady supply of prostitutes, you, Bode Eluyera, would sell out Yoruba people faster than you could say Omo Oduduwa.

I am sure that last paragraph offends you. Well so does your claim that I am 'afraid to stand on my own'. It is up to you to prove your hypothesis and to disprove mine by leaving Nigeria. And if you are really a sincere rovolutionary, then I will remain the goat for eternity.

But I am confident that is an indignity with which I will never have to contend.

Please leave Nigeria already. In the name of our ancestors, please leave today.

Thanks in advance for your departure.

Nok
Jul 5, 2008, 02:06 PM
Briefly, a lot of present day African ethnic groups in Nigeria do not possess strenght of identity or experience of pro-nationalism to face the world in complex global political and economic dealings, were they to attain their independence. Secondly and more importantly, in my opinion, the degee of ethnic divisionism in Nigeria/Africa is simply maddening and seriously neurotic in degree and any opportunity at creating a commonwealth of sufficiently shared aspirations and prosperity might be lost if we go our different ways. We need to be charitable enough to draw up a scheme of all-inclusive development for the different parts of Nigeria.

On the other hand, Nigeria, as it is, is a sort of prison that prevents ethnic groups from reaching their full potential. Every ethnic group today is a stunted manifestation of what it should be developmentwise. I've absolutely no doubt in my mind that with time Nigeria, in failing to develop in accordance with the context of the times, will become progressively politically and economically weaker as well as anarchic, until it is passed back, in exchange for bare survival, to its colonial master.

Something needs to give as far as Nigeria is concerned, and MEND holds the key at the moment. They need to form an alliance with other ethnic groups who can force the Nigerian government to the table for far reaching resolutions that bring the concept of Equality, Justice and Fairness to the Nigerian political narrative.

Bode Eluyera
Jul 6, 2008, 02:00 PM
First, you don't have to shout.

Second, I am not afraid to stand on my own and forge my own destiny unaided by your 'towering intellect'.

Third, you have your relationship with Nigeria all wrong. Those of us who prefer one Nigeria or a restructuring of Nigeria that stops short of dissolution, have been begging you to leave for eons. Yep, we have been fervently begging you to leave Nigeria since you find her so objectionable, but you have conveniently refused to accept our invitation.

Yet you assail this square with your interminable calls for dissolution. Why don't you just leave? Do you really need that much time to work out the details required to seccede? I challenged you and your ilk about two months ago to pack up and leave Nigeria, but being the ideological duds you are, you dodged that challenge. All you and your ilk did instead was virtually transform this square into a petri dish for culturing seccesionist propaganda.

Stand up for what you believe and implement your plan today. And if the plan is not ready, stop running your mouth about secceding and invest your efforts into perfecting your blueprint instead. Please do that so that NVS can be graced with more relevant articles rather than those from a man hell-bent on amusing himself with delusions of superiority.

I am not afraid to see you go. On the contrary, I can't wait to see you go. That way, I will be spared the aggravation of people with middling intellects telling me I am 'afraid to stand on my own'.

We've been insulted enough by you unprincipled hypocrites. If you dispise our country so much to the extent that you corrupt the spelling of the word "Nigeria", why do you still hold a Nigerian passport? Why don't you burn or discard your passport? That is what a principled person would do.

You are nothing but a faux revolutionary, the latest player in the long, inglorious tradition of kill-rape-burn-and-then-beg-for-foreign-intervention
brand of Black African freedom fighters.

If foreign agents were to deposit cash into a numbered account on your behalf, and promise you a steady supply of prostitutes, you, Bode Eluyera, would sell out Yoruba people faster than you could say Omo Oduduwa.

I am sure that last paragraph offends you. Well so does your claim that I am 'afraid to stand on my own'. It is up to you to prove your hypothesis and to disprove mine by leaving Nigeria. And if you are really a sincere rovolutionary, then I will remain the goat for eternity.

But I am confident that is an indignity with which I will never have to contend.

Please leave Nigeria already. In the name of our ancestors, please leave today.

Thanks in advance for your departure.

Honestly, I found your post VERY AMUSING, CHILDISH AND EMOTIONAL. That's all I can say. But, I want you to know that I am not in any way offended and I hold no grudges against you. Nothing personal. I have no other comments. Best wishes.
_________________________
_________________________

...this debate is too theoritical...breaking up Nigeria is a tall dream that can only be discussed by people with too much turanci!
Its not as if they Yorubas are a united people, the Igbos are not, the Ijaw,itsekiris and the Urhobos are not either! if there is any part of Nigeria that has demonstrated some form of unity is the North!
People with too much turanci will make nnoise and so much assumption but not the liver to start up anything in the form starting a break up...so talk/write on!

Nigeria shall remain one!
"akwai ilimi ama ba wayo"
I love Nigeria


IT'S GOOD TO LOVE NIG'GERIA, BUT ...

The same comment was made when the respective former republics that made up the former Yugoslavia were agitating for independence. Where is Yugoslavia today? The same thing was said when many republics that made up the former Soviet Union were agitating for independence. Where is the Soviet Union today? By the way, are you aware of the fact that Finland used to be a part of the former Soviet Union until they broke away? The same thing was said when Eriteria embarked on a protracted and bloody civil war for independence. Where is Ethiopia today. The same thing was said when the blacks were fighting for equal rights and justice.

For your information, in case you don't know, the respective ethnic groups that made up the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union were even much more united than the ethnic groups in Nig/geria. And Ethiopians and Eriterians, in actual fact, are basically the same people or ethnic group. Now, if you don't mind me asking you just one question. If the MIGHTY AND INVINCIBLE FORMER SOVIET UNION with a population of 240 million people and 11 time zones; the former Yugoslavia and Ethiopa respectively could break up, what is so special about Nig.geria? Why can't Nig.geria break up, moreover, if practically all the ethnic groups in the south don't want to be in the same country with the north.

In any case, irrespective of your opinion on this issue, don't you think that it will be fair if a national referendum is conducted in the south to seek the opinion of the respective ethnic groups if they want to be in the same cpountry with the descendants of usman dan fodio? Will you be happy if somebody just grabs your daughter on the street, rapes her and forces her to live with him against her will? But has it ever occured to you that basically that is what has happened to the south, or that is what the north has done to the south? Just think about it seriously and you will eventually agree with me. But you might want to read my articles titled "Oodua republic: To be or not to be?" and One Nig*geria: To be or not to be? (parts 1-6) where my opinion/position are articulated comprehensively.

I am glad to read from you that you love Nig/geria. That's just great!!! I believe that some of us need to love Nig/geria. But, I need to make some explanation here. I don't hate Nig/geria. Believe me, I am saying this sincerely. But what I hate and what makes me sad is how that country that is so much blessed with everything is being ruled by incompetent, corrupt, visionless and morally bankrupt leaders, an overwhelming majority of whom are from the north. This is just a fact that neither me nor you can deny, irrespective of our position. In addition, the fact that I am advocating for an Oodua republic, does not in any way automatically mean that I hate Nig-geria or will do any thing to harm it, although, if we are to be honest again, Nig-geria has done a lot of terrible things to its citizens to justify or warrant our/my hurting it. You just don't expect us to be turning the second cheek whenever Nig/geria through its criminal police or/and army massacre us. We have the right to use any means to defend ourselves.

So, my dear, I have no grudges against you for loving Nig.geria. It's your cup of tea. Where I COMPLETELY disagree with you, as I have already pointed out earlier, is your demanding that nig/geria MUST be one at any cost. That's just dictatorship. Neither me nor you have the right to demand that 140 million people consisting of more than 100 ethnic groups MUST remain in Nig-geria AGAINST their will. You will surely agree with me that that's just not fair, and that's not what democracy or the rule of law is about. So, what I am saying or proposing in essence is that, BEFORE EXPENDING SO MUCH ENERGY, RESOURCES AND TIME INTO BUILDING "ONE NIG-GERIA, ONE NATION," LET US FIRST OF ALL ASK THE YORUBAS, NDIGBOS, ITSEKIRIS, OGONIS, IJAWS AND OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS IN THE SOUTH IF THEY WANT TO LIVE IN ONE NIG-GERIA THROUGH A REFERENDUM.

We can not, and must not force people to live in a house against their will. Doing that tantamounts to suppression, oppression, slavery and colonialism - and not democracy. Each ethnic group must be asked different questions. For example, the referendum question that the Yorubas will be asked may be in this form: "GIVEN THE LOPSIDED AND PARASITIC ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE YORUBAS AND THE NORTH, ARE YOU IN SUPPORT OF YOUR ETHNIC GROUP I.E. THE YORUBAS REMAINING IN NIG-GERIA? YES OR NO? OR, ARE YOU IN SUPPORT OF OODUA REPUBLIC? YES OR NO? When the date of the referendum is fixed, you are completely free to campaign among your own ethnic group to remain in nig-geria, and I should also be completely free to campaign among the Yorubas about the benefits of Oodua republic. If the Yorubas reject Oodua republic, and choose One Ni-geria instead, then I ASSURE you that I will join you in building one nig-geria. But it's premature now to start building a house that people don't want to live in. We should not put the cart before the horse by assuming that we all want to be a part of nig-geria. We can't just take it for granted that the Yorubas, for example, want to live in one nig-geria. Let's ask them first. Don't let us force one nig-geria on anybody. Let us give the people the opportunity to choose. This is the bone of question between me and a lot of my antagonists.



That's just by the way. What I can't really understand, and I honestly need your help to understand it, is that if the north, as you claim, is/are more united than the south, then, what stops them from breaking away from Nig/geria and forming a seperate country of their, where there is a better mutual understanding? Why is the north hanging on to Nig-geria, or to the south, to be more precise? Why can't the north just tell the south to go to hell, and form their own United Islamic republic of Hausas and Fulanis, or United Sharia republic of Usman dan fodio? Why is it that it is only the north that is so much interested in the INTEGRITY of Nig-geria.


Time, as the saying goes, will provide answers to many questions. I know something for sure - The days of niG-Geria are numbered. It's no more a question of 'if' but 'when.' The north does not have even a 100th of the military might of neither the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia nor even Ethiopia to keep nig-geria together. This is not 1967, when the Yorubas were tricked by the north into supporting their SELFISH One Nig-geria war against BIAFRA. This is the 21st century, 2008, 40 years after the beginning of the civil war. Since then, a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Many southerners don't believe in one nig/geria again. Furthermore, we now know that the the north is not sincere, and is just using one nig-geria as a camouflag to steal, waste and mismanage the resources of the south. Most importantly, people in the south are now convinced that they will be much better off without the unproductive north, which has become a perpetual parasite, liability and burden on the south. The south now understand that one nig/geria is nothing but legalised robbery of the south by the north. Just read the news from nig-geria, and you will be compelled to agree with me. It's almost impossible to sell one nig-geria to the Ndigbos, niger deltans and the Yorubas.


If the north starts another war in the niger delta, they are in for it. A big and surprise await them. We/Yorubas will NEVER repeat the mistake that we made in 1967. I hope that I have made myself clear enough with this post.

CHEERS AND BEST WISHES.


================================================== =====================
1.00: I will try to be as concise as I can be with this two part submission. Therefore, where I use examples, please be assured that for every one that I use, there are several other things that I could have mentioned.

1.01: I am hoping with this debate to get certain things out in the open. I believe, as stated earlier, that those who are calling for the disintegration of Nigeria are ones working (consciously or unconsciously) for the same forces that originally set the peoples within that geographical space on their current aimless course.

1.02: In other words, just as once upon a time, the welding together of our various ethnicities into one State was the best option for the ones that midwifed the birth of Nigeria, the dissolution (at this time) of Nigeria into smaller (more manageable) chunks is now seen by those same predatory forces as being the best possible outcome.

I will be more elaborate regarding this assertion in the second part of this submission.

2.00: I believe that the ones calling for disintegration are disingenuous in the way they ignore certain immovable facts that stand in the way of a peaceful dissolution. I have also seen dishonesty in the way some have made assured assumptions that are based on nothing like the reality existing on the ground and, in the way certain euphemisms have being used to conceal what is actually being spoken about.

2.01: A common tactic when trying to illuminate a topic under discussion is to seek correspondence with situations that seem similar. I myself have used the example of long-term dissatisfaction in other multi-ethnic States while speaking of the obstacles that stand in the way of the birth of a true Nigerian nation. However, to go from using examples of the dissatisfactions that existed in a multi-ethnic empire like the USSR to describing its alleged peaceful dissolution as a predictor of something that looms inevitably in Nigeria's future is, as already stated, disingenuous.

2.02: Ongoing events in Chechnya, Ossetia, Ukraine, Georgia and the Asian Muslim republics that were the southern vanguard of the old USSR stand as proof that dissolution, even when accomplished without bloodshed does not always guarantee that a collective tragedy will not occur in the future.
3.00: It may be good to look at the various scenarios that have been placed before us by those who speak on the forms dissolution can take.

3.010: There is the scenario where the so-called Southern Nigeria breaks away from what is called Northern Nigeria. The first question that springs to mind for me as a Yoruba person as I look upon this definitely anti-Emirate 'Southern Nigeria Republic' is : Where are my family from Kwara and Kogi?

3.011: Are these, ones with whom I have more in common with than with my so-called fellow 'Southern Nigerians', to be sacrificed on the altar of the repugnance that drives me away from those who share that part of Nigeria with the Yoruba? Or, am I to insist that they come with their fellow Omo Oodua?

There are more questions along this line, but like I said earlier, for the sake of brevity, I will only mention a few out of several that exists.

3.020: Another scenario that is placed before us is the one where each ethnic group gets a country of its own.

3.021: Unfortunately again, here, the examples we have from similar occurrences around the world are either to dissimilar to what exists on the ground in Nigeria, or, only half of the picture is revealed and, this is the half that serves the purpose of those using these occurrences as predictors of what can happen in Nigeria.

3.022: We are told about Czechoslovakia, a country that successfully broke up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. What we are not told is that the ease with which this happened was due to the fact that the two contiguous countries that evolved from the old Socialist Republic were peopled by the two majority ethnic groups that later made up the citizens of the devolved republics. In other words, unlike in a prospective Oodua Republic, especially in one where all areas that have a majority Yoruba population are included, there were no corresponding minorities like Awori, Urhrobo, Fulani, Ijaw, Ebira...etc.

3.023: Therefore, Slovakia has not experienced what the Oodua Republic will surely experience when the 'minorities' start asking either to be allowed to take their piece of land and join it to their brethren in the Ijaw Republic (for example) or, to the Arewa Sultanate (in the case of the Fulani). Neither has the Czech Republic experienced what the Oodua republic will experience when those Ebira and Urhrobo settlements caught up in its final borders disagree with the Yoruba consensus that sees the story of self-determination as one that has reached a conclusion and, commence instead a struggle for their own autonomy....

3.024: In short, to use Czechoslovakia as an example is as bad as using the alleged peaceful break-up of the USSR as an example. The best predictors may actually be what is transpiring as we speak in the Caucasus [Refs] and in the lands that used to be the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia.

Since as we speak, Bosnia is still occupied by 'peace-keeping' forces from NATO and, the matter between Serbia and the Albanians of Kosovo is not yet settled, one is left to marvel at the superhuman optimistic ability of those from our country-men who, armed with blood-soaked examples like this, still proclaim the rightness of this crusade to lead us towards the bright future that beckons right after a clean separation from the masses of people who are at fault for the current Nigerian nightmare.

4.00: I assert that if there is no rational reason for the continued existence of Nigeria, then there is no reason to presume that there will be harmony in a Southern Nigeria Republic.

4.01: For the sake of summarising the argument, we can disregard some reality for now. We can omit from our projections the matter of how the other so-called minorities will be accommodated within this Southern Nigeria republic.

4.02: Since the problems that accompany ethnic differences in the Nigeria we have at present have largely revolved around the dynamics between the so-called Big 3, we can project into the future and ask if the Big 2 of Southern Nigeria will experience greater amity once the Hausa are out of the picture.

The only truly useful answer to this question is the one that allows for uncomfortable truths.

5.00: We have not looked at religion yet but, since this plays a large part in the lives of our people, since in fact, a large part of the character is formed by the religion one adheres to, we should look at how religious differences will play a part in the prospective adventure that has been named the Republic of Southern Nigeria (apologies if I have got the name wrong).

5.01: For a start, Yoruba Muslims, of which there are tens of millions, have more in common with Hausa Muslims than they do with an Igbo Christians...an inconvenient truth that those whose true purpose may actually be the gradual dissolution of Nigeria into little chunks presently ignore when they start playing the false tunes that sing the beauty of our alleged Southern commonality.

In short, this idea of a harmonious Southern Nigeria whose progress is being retarded by the alien North should be put under the classification of wishful thinking and/or fraudulent description of goods - where it belongs.

Refs:
Trouble in the Caucasus :
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl2118/stories/20040910000605700.htm
http://www.memo.ru/eng/memhrc/hotpoint.shtml
http://peacelikeariverblog.com/2007/07/bit-of-trouble-in-south-ossetia.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1999/07/990700-trouble.htm



YOU ARE REALLY MIXING THINGS UP!!!

Eja,

Foremost, I want to thank you for your courage in opening or starting a thread on this very important issue. I strongly believe that it's better to discuss an issue, no matter how sensitive, and not agree than agreeing to an issue without discussing it. In addition, I want to believe that you started this discussion with a good/sincere intention, and not with the intention of ddeceiving or manipulating the villagers. I have read quiet a number of enlightening posts from you in the past. At the same time, with all respects to you, I must say that PRACTYICALLY ALL YOUR SUBMISSIONS ON THIS TOPIC ARE FLAWED, EXAGGERATED AND UPSIDE DOWN.

Unlike most of you guys whose exposure are limited to the west alone, I have a rare and unique opportunity to see both the east and west. In addition, I have been monitoring and analysing political, economic and military events in these two regions for more than 15 years.

I have already adressed some of the issues raised in your post in my articles, "Oodua republic: To be or not to be?" and One Nig.geria: To be or not to be? (Parts 1-6)" Others will be adressed in coming parts. However, I will quickly point out some misconceptions in your post. Let me first ask you one question. Apart from what you might have read in the press, have you ever in your life been to Russia, Chechnya, Ukraine, etc? Yes or no? What do you know about the relationship between Ukraine, Chechnya and Russia? What do you know about the internal political situation in Ukraine? Have you ever in your life spoken to anybody from Russia, Ukraine, Chechnya, Czech, Slovakia, or any of the former Yugoslavia republics before? Yes or no?Why do you think that it is wrong to use the former Soviet Union, Czech republic and Yugoslavia as an example? Please state your reasons. Don't just make general or sweeping statements. If a peaceful dissolution worked for the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czech republic, why can't it work for Nig.geria? What is so special about Nig/geria? My brother, I prove it to you that you don't know ANYTHING about what you are commenting about. And if at all you do, your knowledge about the REAL political and economic situations in these countries is flawed. In short, you have dabbled into a topic and area that you know very little about. You can not get objective information about the east from Time or Newsweek.

Concerning Kwara and Kogi states, the truth is that the north is using all this state creations to divide the Yorubas, and steal our territiory. Kwara state is 100% Yoruba territory. My friend who studied medicine in Russia always got annoyed whenever Kwara state was referred to as the north. He is from Ofa. I have been to Ilorin myself. At least half of the inhabitants of Kogi are Yorubas. This state cfreation exercise is a 'divide and rule tactics' that the north is successfully using on us. Unfortunately, we are falling for it. Instead of demanding for at least federalism, we are busy running to Abuja and begging the Hausas and Fulanis to divide us further with the creation of new states. If you are afraid that when Oodua republic emerges or is declared you will find yourself in the north, with the descendants of Usman dan fodio, I can understand you. But there is no basis for your fear. I can assure you that when the chips are down the Yorubas will not give Kwara and Kogi to the north to take away with them. In anycase, if we eventually decide to divide, all these issues are negotiable. We know where our territory atarts and end. Just like any new and ambitious project, there are bound to be some risk, uncertainty, etc, but that does not mean that one should not pursue a right, fair and just course to the end.

I repeat again. The Yorubas don't have ANYTHING in common with the hausas and fulanis. The fact that we have muslims among us does in no way mean that we have anything in common with them. The north practises VIOLENT ISLAM. We, the Yorubas practise MODERATE ISLAM. There are many ibos that get along very well with the Yorubas. Many ibos have not only embraced the Yoruba culture, but have assimilated completely into Yoruba territory. There are many Ndigbos whose Yoruba is good to the extent that you will find it very difficult to believe that they are ndigbos. The best lady friend of my sister is ibo, her Yoruba is even better than mine. MANY YORUBA MUSLIMS GET ON VERY VERY VERY WELL WITH XTIAN NDIGBOS. Religion has never been an issue or barrier in our relationship with the Ndigbos. The fact that you are a Yoruba muslim will not stop the descendants of usman dan fodio from slaughtering you in the north. They are not even going to give you the chance to identify yourself or claim that you are a muslim. Non-Nig/gerians; Arabs, Pakistanis, British, Americans, Indians, Lebanese, Europeans, are treated much better, and are much safer than you Yoruba muslim in the north.

Finally, for the sake of this discussion, let me make something very clear. I AM FOR OODUA REPUBLIC AND NOT FOR REPUBLIC OF SOUTHERN NIG.GERIA. My grouping the south together in my articles have got to do more with tactics than the desire for a republic of southern niG.Geria. In addition, since we (the south) are all victims of the so called One Nig/geria project that is being sponsored by the north, I believe that we should all come together, form a COMMON FRONT to fight the north. We/Yorubas need our own Oodua republic where we can choose the best of the best to rule over us. We need our own republic where we can take decisions that best meet our political, economic, military and cultural interests, without any compromise. We need our own Oodua republic to develop our language our culture. The Yorubas are more than big enough to have their own sovereign country. Therefore, MY POSITION IS THAT THE YORUBAS SHOULD GET RID OF THE NORTH AND FORM THEIR OODUA REPUBLIC. I am only speaking for the Yorubas. Others have the right to speak for themselves. It's just impossible to think about what will happen to others if we form our Oodua republic. We can't solve everybody's problems. We have more than enough of ours to solve. Let everybody use their resources to solve their problems. And if you need more resources, please be kind enough to pay the FULL MARKET PRICE for it. NO MORE FREE LUNCH, WASTAGE AND STEALING OF OTHER PEOPLES' RESOURCES UNDER THE PRETEXT OF BUILDING ONE NIG'GERIA THAT THE BRITISH FORCED US INTO .

LET EVERYBODY USE ITS RESOURCES TO DEVELOP THEIR TERRITORY. LET THE IJAWS, OGONIS AND OTHERS USE 'ALL' THEIR OIL AND GAS TO DEVELOP THEIR OWN TERRITORIES. They should not give them to anybody for free again in the name of building a fake and non-existing one nig.geria that they did not subscribe to. See what one niG.Geria has caused them. If they were on their own right from the onset, they would not have been living like the stone-age as they do now. One niG'Geria has made them poorer even that the church rats. Their oil will finish in about 40 yeras time. My advise to them is to break away and use their resources EXCLUSIVELY on their own development, and not give them out any more for free.

Yorubas too have oil.

Although, I appreciate your effort to start a debate on this topic, however, to be honest with you, you will have to do more than posting this UNCONVINCING AND SERIOUSLY FLAWED POST in order to persuade or convince people like me. Your arguments are TOO WEAK. They are full of many LOOP HOLES. THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO ARGUE. YOU CAN ONLY CONVINCE EMOTIONAL, IGNORANT AND UNSINCERE PEOPLE WITH THIS KIND OF POST.

BUT, IF YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE UP TO THE TASK, THEN I CHALLENGE YOU TO WRITE AN ARTICLE ON THIS ISSUE LIKE I HAVE DONE. ANYBODY CAN START A THREAD ON ANY TOPIC. IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH BRAINS OR INTELLIGENCE TO DO THAT. IT'S MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO WRITE A CONVINCING ARTICLE. I HAVE THROWN DOWN THE GAUNLET. I CHALLENGE YOU TO PICK IT UP IF YOU ARE SURE OF YOURSELF. STOP HIDING BEHIND POSTS.

I REST MY CASE.
_________________________
_________________________
Iyaalata,

I just want to thank you for your position in this debate. You have done a WONDERFUL job. I could not have done better. May you live long. I am glad that we have people like you on NVS. Oodua needs you to develop and pass on your knowledge to the present and coming generations.

Iyaalata, how else can we explain to these people that we need our own country where we can rule over ourselves? How else can we explain to them that one niG/Geria is NOT in the interest of the Yorubas? How else can we explain to them that the issue is more than oil and gas?

Nobody can dissuade us from having our Oodua republic. For those who want to continue living in nig'geria, and remain slaves to the north, it's their cup of tea. For those who are proud to have Gowon, Shagari, Abacha, Murtala, Buhari, babangida, Yaradua as their presidents, you are free to remain in one nig/Geria. For those who want to remain in one nig/geria, and are contended with english being the only official language, they are completely free to do so. For those who are SO PROUD of communicating only in english, a colonial language, and refer to their mother tongues as VERNACULAR, as big-k did a couple of weeks ago to my Yoruba, and can't communicate in their mother tongues, one nig/geria is a perfect country for them. But please don't disturb or stop people who want to concentrate their resources exclusively on their own development to do so. Just like you have the right to continue living in the bondage called one niG.Geria, we should also have the right to form our own sovereign country.

OODUA REPUBLIC IS NOT DEBATABLE AND NEGOTIABLE. IT'S ABOUT OUR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION. WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH RESOURCES TO FORM A PROSPEROUS, PEACEFUL, STRONG AND DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. WE DON'T NEED YARADUA TO DO THAT FOR US.WE ARE BLESSED PEOPLE. WE ARE SELF SUFFICIENT PEOPLE. WE DON'T NEED ONE NIG.GERIA.

WHO IS AFRAID TO STAND ON ITS OWN? THE NORTH!!!!

Iyaalata, I think we have made our points and should just leave this discussion/debate. There is no point in expending our energy on repeating things that are obvious. What need to start working seriously on how to achieve our objective. Yoruba bo won ni "Ti a ba fi ile ponti, ti a fi ona roka, eni tio yo yio kuku yo."

Oodua a gbe wa o.



================================================== ==================
Below post(s) brought over from the Crucible's main thread:
================================================== ===================

That is a possibility, but in that case, it might be better if that is formally agreed to so that the quality of the debate can be maintained.

So Mr. Eluyera, are you willing to take over the debate from iyaalata and go toe-to-toe with Eja on this issue?

THANK YOU, NO.

Thank you for your offer Mr. moderator. However, I decline the offer to take over from Iyaalata for the following reasons:

1. He has been involved in the discussion before I came in -infact, I was invited to this thread by him;

2. He is already doing a wonderful job before my arrival;

3. He is one of the very few people in this village that I have a strong admiration and respect for as regards to their intellectual capabity;

4. I honestly believe that he can even do the job better than me;

5. I agree with him practically on all issues;

6. My articles are explicit enough to explain my position on this issue;

7. I prefer to articulate and systematise my arguments in form of articles - that makes my arguments beter because I'll have to scrutinise my arguments before presenting them;

8. A number of the issues raised by eja have already been dealt with in my articles. I don't want to waste my precious time and energy repeating over and over what I have already explained in my articles. I do better spend the time and energy writing new articles;

9. I am not even sure that eja has taken his time to read my articles on this issue before starting this debate. I can't remember him commenting on my previous articles. Before I go into debate with him or any other village, the minimum prerequisite is that such a villager should first read and digest all my articles on this topic. That will make the discussion/debate more effective because I will have to answer CONCRETE questions from my articles. I don't want to take part in a debate just for the sake of it. There must be a sense in it.

10. I prefer to adress some of his comments in the coming parts of articles. I don't want to write a seperate article specially for eja.

11. I can't engage in a serious debate with 'faceless people.' To me eja is a faceless villager. At least, I need to know his real identity. I can't be debating with something who calls himself eja. How can I even be sure that he is not an SSS man or a protege of Yaradua? Since, he knows my identity, I deserve to know his too for fairness. The playing field should be balanced for fairness.

12. I prefer to expend my energy, time and even money debating with people that could play invaluable roles in realising Oodua republic project, if they are convinced. I gain nothing from convincing one faceless eja of the need for Oodua republic.


13. I really don't have the time. I am very busy working on 3 articles now.

Thank you again for the offer.

Wishing you all the best in your debate.
_________________________
_________________________
Eja,

Thanks for your reply. To be honest, I don't want to be drawn into this debate because it's going to consume my time, destract my attention and prevent me from completing the 3 articles that I am presently working on.

Secondly, if you care to know where I am from, my father is from Ile-Ife, the cradle of Yoruba land and my mother is from Eko. As far as I am concerned, whether you are from Kwara, Kogi, Ekiti or Ondo, we are all the same blood, the sons and daughters of Oodua. And I really don't care where the president of Oodua republic (will) come(s) from, so far he is qualified and the best among the contestants. Furthermore, for your information, I don't have any political ambition. I will consider it a honour if called upon to serve as an adviser in Oodua republic. I am even ready to render my service to my mother land for free. I do rather concentrate on investment projects that will bring meaningful changes to the lives of Yorubas rather than going into politics.

Thirdly, my stating that I am speaking for the Yorubas is figurative. Perhaps, I should have said that I am speaking for myself. Is that formulation more acceptable to you? Now let me tell you a secret - a number of Yoruba intellectuals share my opinion. It's just that they don't know how to go about it without blood shed. This is the only thing holding them back. You have expressed similar fear/concern in your post. But, I am convinced that the Yorubas are in the best position of breaking away without engaging the north in any war. However, that will take a good plan to realise.

Fourth, we really have to define what the debate is all about. Are we saying that the Yorubas are better off remaining with the north in Nig.geria? Or the debate is about the danger of starting another war with the north in our attempt to realise the Oodua repubic project? Or both? If the debate is about the vialibility of an Oodua republic, I have already written an article titled "Oodua republic: To be or not to be? (part 1)," on this topic. Why don't you take your time and read it first. I wanted to devote part 2 of the article to a concrete plan on how the Yorubas could realise the Oodua project, but I was late convinced by my fellow brothers in high places NOT to make such a public. After giving it a thought, I agreed with them. So, if the debate is about the second question, or the FEASIBILITY of Oodua republic, I am not going to even discuss that with you here on this forum/thread because of its sensitivity. You will be shocked to find out the calibre of Yorubas that are in support of Oodua republic.

I will adress the serious flaws and misconceptions in your posts in my coming articles. I don't want to write a seperate article for you here.

I believe that you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. However, one thing that I believe that we should both agree on is the right of Yorubas to decide whether they want to be part of Nig/geria or not through a REFERENDUM. This is what democracy and rule of law is all about. Let us present our arguments to the sons and daughters of Oodua, and let them decide in a referendum whose arguments they buy.

What you should understand is that some villagers will always have their own 'hidden and selfish' reasons for supporting one niG.Geria, or for wanting the Yorubas to remain in nig'geria together with the north. as I have said earlier, I want to believe that your intention of starting this debate is sincere.
Finally, I want to make it clear to you that I don't in any way hate the north. I may disapprove of somebody's behaviour, but that does in no way mean that I hate the person. Saying that I don't want to be ruled by Yaradua, but by a much more competent Yoruba president is not tribalism but awareness and preference.

We need to get something clear once and for all - our demand for an Oodua republic does not in any way mean that we/I don't wish the north or any other tribe well. This is BLACKMAIL. I am not asking anybody or tribe to give us what belongs to them for free. All I am advocating for is that we need our own seperate country where we can concentrate our own resources exclusively on our own development. We need a seperate country where we can take decisions that best meet our politicaI, military and economic interests by ourselves, and not go to Abuja. We need a seperate country where we can develop our language and culture to the fullest. We need a seperate country with a capital that has an historic connection with the Yorubas. What is the crime in such a just demand? If not for the British, there would never have been Nig.geria in the first place.

Honestly, I respect and welcome your effort in starting this debate. I believe that we the Yorubas need to discuss this issue among ourselves for mutual understanding, and in order to form a common front together in realising whatever agreement that is reached. Although, our approaches may be different, but what is undisputable is the fact that we are all concerned about the welfare and progress of the Yorubas as a nation. My belief is that the best option is for the Yorubas to break away, and form a seperate country.

Furthermore, I think that the debate would have been more productive if you have made my article a platform for the debate. There is just no point in inventing a bicycle when it has already been invited. But you can do much better by improving on already invented bicycle.

I sincerely hope that I have made myself clear enough with this post?

Wishing you a productive debate.

THE YORUBAS DESERVE THEIR OWN SEPERATE COUNTRY!!! WE ARE GOING TO FIGHT FOR IT. IT'S A COURSE THAT IS WORTH LIVING AND DYING FOR.

DeepThought
Jul 7, 2008, 01:24 AM
Originally posted in main Crucible by adama50
==============
Sad, when you can see your own people as the enemy, reading what you are saying scare me and, I get the feeling there is no hope for us as a race of people with, people like you around. We are called backward people and this certainly proves it. When other races are coming together to defeat the evils of this world we want to pull apart. I think you are a racist. Nigeria might not be the best yet, but what you are suggesting is worst, why not just solve your problems with Nigeria, by just moving to Europe and staying there.

========================

Subsequent response by Iyaalata below:

adama50,
please remove your post #34 from this thread and put it, if you must, in the parallel thread.
_________________________
_________________________
I am pleased with the above contributions by Bode. His is a perspective that I feel is relevant to the original purpose for which Eja sought to have this debate. I issued invitations for more contributions in threads across the NVS website but the separatist propagators will not be joining us.

I will appreciate keeping Bode's advocacy for an independent and strong Oduduwa nation, for the record. His is a healthy indication of the latent power of ethnic .....
__________________



@Iyalata/Bode Eluyera/Adama50

I refer to the above posting in the main thread of the crucible:

The rules are the rules are the rule......

Bode Eluyera should not be posting to the main debate thread ....unless he accepts to become the main debator and agrees to replace Iyaalata.

This kind of disregard for the rules will only encourage other copy cat disregards that we already see in Adama50. We cannot allow one man to break the rules just because we like his views and then turn around and disbar another.

As Bode Eluyera has declined to replace you (Iyaalata) and is not the main debator, his post should not be in the Crucible's main thread. The same goes for Adama50

Its really that simple

I'll be sending a pm to Mr Moderator to please enforce the rules.

Thank you


P.S:
Update--
This is a July 07 ,2008 update to above italicized post made earlier on July 06,2008
Postings previously made by Adama50 and Bode Eluyera in the main debating thread has now been moved and merged with the last posts made in this parallel threads as may be seen above.



Thank you

Bode Eluyera
Jul 7, 2008, 01:53 PM
Part 4 of my article, "How the Niger deltans can get their freedom: The Action plan!" is now available on nigeriansinamerica.com.

NextLevel
Jul 7, 2008, 02:11 PM
I don't have moderating powers, so I'd appreciate any moderator who can effect what Deep Thought has said, which is in line with what I wrote earlier about having to move the posts.

DeepThought
Jul 7, 2008, 02:15 PM
NL,
Done.

Thanks.

Alata
Jul 8, 2008, 08:55 AM
NextLevel and Deepthought.

I do not think Eja or Bode will indicate any problems with moving the posts.

Thanks for the maintenance work.

Bode Eluyera
Jul 8, 2008, 04:47 PM
Originally posted in main Crucible by adama50
==============
Sad, when you can see your own people as the enemy, reading what you are saying scare me and, I get the feeling there is no hope for us as a race of people with, people like you around. We are called backward people and this certainly proves it. When other races are coming together to defeat the evils of this world we want to pull apart. I think you are a racist. Nigeria might not be the best yet, but what you are suggesting is worst, why not just solve your problems with Nigeria, by just moving to Europe and staying there.

========================

Subsequent response by Iyaalata below:




@Iyalata/Bode Eluyera/Adama50

I refer to the above posting in the main thread of the crucible:

The rules are the rules are the rule......

Bode Eluyera should not be posting to the main debate thread ....unless he accepts to become the main debator and agrees to replace Iyaalata.

This kind of disregard for the rules will only encourage other copy cat disregards that we already see in Adama50. We cannot allow one man to break the rules just because we like his views and then turn around and disbar another.

As Bode Eluyera has declined to replace you (Iyaalata) and is not the main debator, his post should not be in the Crucible's main thread. The same goes for Adama50
Its really that simple

I'll be sending a pm to Mr Moderator to please enforce the rules.

Thank you


P.S:
Update--
This is a July 07 ,2008 update to above italicized post made earlier on July 06,2008
Postings previously made by Adama50 and Bode Eluyera in the main debating thread has now been moved and merged with the last posts made in this parallel threads as may be seen above.



Thank you

Deep thought,

Na wa for U o. You just want to make the main debater. I really don't understand why. I will appreciate it if you can let me know the reason. I have already stated my reason why I don't want to be the main debater. Moreover, you never sent me any official invitation to participate in any debate. I got to know about your debate accidentally, actually I was invited by Iyaalata. And to be honest, I repeat again, I think that Iyaalata can actually perform even better than me. I have no doubts about it. There is a Yoruba message that goes thus "Ka ro aso modi, ka ro idi maso, ki idi o sa mati so fo ni. Another one goes thus "Oko rejo, iyawo pa, kejo ma sa ti salo ni" At the end of the day, it really makes no difference who is doing the debating as far as a very competent debator is filling in for me, and the right message is presented.

Secondly, I got a PM from you yesterday containing instructions on how the debate should be conducted. But, you made one serious omission: You did not introduce yourself properly. I expected you to tell me and others the role you are playing in the debate in order to avoid any confusion, misgivings or misconceptions. My impression before was that NextLevel was the moderator, therefore, I was confused on getting a PM from you. So, if you don't mind my asking, who are you? What role are you playing in the debate? Do you have any official connection or relationship with NVS or you are just an ordinary floor member like us, who has just taken up the initiative and upon himself to coordinate the debate? Deepthought, in my opinion, we need to clearify this before taking part in any debate. My assumption, till now, is that you are an ordinary NVS floor member - I am now a FULL MEMEBER.

Finally, in case you are one of NVS publishers, assigned the authority to publish articles, then I want to use this opportunity to bring it to your attention that my latest article titled "How the Niger deltans can get their freedom: The action plan! (part 5) sent for publication last Saturday has not been published yet. Could you please look into this? Thank you in advance. If we are invited to take part in any discussion, I believe that we should not be restricted in our views. My articles, just like my posts, undoubtedly, are an integral part of my views and positions. By the way, the article in question has already been published on the web site of nigerianinamerica.com.

Best wishes.

NextLevel
Jul 8, 2008, 09:14 PM
Bode,

IT's just about maintaining the rules of the Crucible. Don't take it personally. I don't have moderating privileges so I have to tell a moderator (Deep Thought) what I want done.

NL.

DeepThought
Jul 9, 2008, 03:23 AM
But, you made one serious omission: You did not introduce yourself properly.

Thank you for your comment. Pls accept my appology for the serious ommisson of not properly introducing myself.I hope the below clarification suffices.


I don't have moderating privileges so I have to tell a moderator (Deep Thought) what I want done.

NL.
Today 12:47 PM

Alata
Jul 13, 2008, 11:19 AM
Bode,
Am I right that your articles can be found here (http://www.nigeriansinamerica.com/authors/256/Bode-Eluyera) at nigeriansinamerica.com?

Bode Eluyera
Jul 14, 2008, 05:48 PM
Bode,
Am I right that your articles can be found here (http://www.nigeriansinamerica.com/authors/256/Bode-Eluyera) at nigeriansinamerica.com?

Iyaalata,
Thank you for your effort and the time you took to make this available. I was compelled to refer NVS villagers to that site because my latest article titled "How the Niger deltans can get their freedom. The Action plan! (part 5)", sent 10 days ago to NVS for publication, has not yet been published, for reasons unknown to me. But I have decided to write admin. 'officially' and enquire.

By the way part 6 should have been ready very soon. But, I had to rewrite it due to the latest development concerning the invitation of the G8 to the Niger delta by Yaradua to massacre the militants and the indigenes for having the audacity to tell Yaradua to stop stealing their oil in the name of building a fake and non-existing 'One Nig-geria.' Sometimes, I can't stop asking myself if Nig'gerians and blacks in general are cursed by God. Even in my wildest dreams, I just can't imagine a president of Nig-geria inviting America and Britain, our former(?) colonial master to come and slaughter the citizens of his country. This is part of the VISIONLESS LEADERSHIP that we are talking about.

Alata
Jul 15, 2008, 08:16 AM
Is it not possible to indict UMYass for treasonable felony to inviting US/EU jackboots to war against Nigerian citizens?

Chief Kalu
Jul 15, 2008, 08:54 AM
Part 4 of my article, "How the Niger deltans can get their freedom: The Action plan!" is now available on nigeriansinamerica.com.
Your goal in all this beats my imagination. You clamour for oodua republic, You are also encouraging the Niger Delta to leave Nigeria. What exactly do you want? Nations of what size?

Son of the Delta
Jul 15, 2008, 08:56 PM
Your goal in all this beats my imagination. You clamour for oodua republic, You are also encouraging the Niger Delta to leave Nigeria. What exactly do you want? Nations of what size?

Your arguement on the ground that the new independent states will be too small does not make sense.

There are several countries arround the world that are many times smaller than the smallest state in Nigeria.

I will suggest you look for another point to back up your arguement in support of Nigeria's continued existence.

Alata
Jul 15, 2008, 10:38 PM
Son of the Delta
You are on record as having made many comments relevant to this topic.
Please join the debate at the main thread (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/crucible/73771-nigeria-folly-wisdom-disintegration-main-debate-thread-4.html) :neutral: :arrow:

Chief Kalu
Jul 16, 2008, 08:59 AM
Your arguement on the ground that the new independent states will be too small does not make sense.

There are several countries arround the world that are many times smaller than the smallest state in Nigeria.

I will suggest you look for another point to back up your arguement in support of Nigeria's continued existence.
SOD,
Ilike truth sessions, I hardly argue for sake of argument because I do not enjoy unprofitable ventures, an Ibo man that I am.

At some point I had given myself to considering the side I should belong and I am fully convinced that a break up may not solve our problems.

The Nigerian nation is on course and evolving, it may be slow, but surely moving forward.
What we have is pure recovery form the civil war. Corruption, greed and distrust among the various nationalities that make up Nigeria remains the isuues hampering fast progress. But agitations from all claiming marginalisation is bringing us closer to collective discussion on the way forward.

I do not in anyway trust those presenting themselves as champions and leaders of the new nations that will emerge from disintigration. I see them as men seeking oppurtunities for self actualisation, and personal agrandisement.

Who says they are not working hard to corner states that they will love to be made presidents and governors and ministers. Self interests my dear.

Uduaghan with his 13% created DESOPADEC, DESOPADEC claims to have commissioned over 400projcts in Delter State. That is moving foward.
Our problem has always been sincerity of purpose in leadership.

Nigeria as a Nation has an organised millitary with several decades of experience. If we continue, we will make a more formidable force than the smaller units that will emerge from disintegration.

The banking sector started working after the consolidation, smaller banks merged into bigger ones and we can drop our money and go to sleep.
We are now clamouring for smaller entities,going back to where we are coming from.Making progress in reverse.

Every zone controlling, even 100% of its resourses may not guarantee meaningful progress until we cure the thieving parts of us and learn to do proper planning and management.
Let me stop here for now.

Bode Eluyera
Jul 16, 2008, 01:53 PM
Your goal in all this beats my imagination. You clamour for oodua republic, You are also encouraging the Niger Delta to leave Nigeria. What exactly do you want? Nations of what size?

Thank you for your question. What do I really want? I want Nigeria to break up!!! I want the Yorubas to have their own sovereign country where they can choose the best of the best to represent them, concentrate all their resources exclusively on their own development, take decisions that best meet their economic, political, military and social interests without any compromise and develop their culture and language. All these are not attainable as far as the Yorubas remain within Nigeria. The probability of the Yorubas succeeding as a sovereign nation, without the descendants of usman dan fodio, is at least 10 times higher than Nigeria succeeding as a nation. This is not an emotional position. I know what I am talking about.

Today, the most feasible way of breaking up Nigeria is through the crisis in the Nig'ger delta. Therefore, we need to give them all the necessary support needed for them to achieve their goal because their victory is our collective victory. We can't afford to miss this opportunity. If we miss this opportunity, generations coming after us will NEVER forgive us. This is the best time to break up Nigeria. Such opportunity may never come again.

Nigeria is an ARTIFICIAL COUNTRY.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ONE Nigeria BEFORE. THERE IS NO ONE Nigeria NOW. THERE WILL NEVER BE ONE Nigeria. IT'S HIGH TIME WE FACED THE TRUTH. WE SHOULD STOP DECEIVING OURSELVES. Nigeria IS NOTHING BUT 'LEGALISED ROBBERY' OF THE SOUTH BY THE NORTH. I AM GOING TO WORK TOWARDS BREAKIN UP Nigeria. IT'S A MISSION THAT I DEEPLY BELIEVE IN. IT'S A COURSE THAT IS WORTH LIVING AND DYING FOR!!!

I hope that I have made myself clear enough?
_________________________
_________________________
It's neither me nor you who should decide the size of a nation. Let the people decide themselves. For your information, Singapore is a city-country, without oil, but its GNP is much higher than that of your Nigeria, the giant of Africa, with the 8th largest reserve of oil in the world. The greatness of a country is not in the size of its territory or population. I will write about this in details in part 7 or 8 of my article "One Nigeria: To be or not to be?"
_________________________
_________________________

Is it not possible to indict UMYass for treasonable felony to inviting US/EU jackboots to war against Nigerian citizens?

Iyaalata,

Thank you for your observation. However, I am afraid to say that as far as Yaradua is concerned, that's not treason. To him, he is just trying to protect the integrity of federal republic of northern Nigeria, even if it means inviting the British and Americans to bomb all the Niger deltans to death.

By inviting the British and Americans to lead a war against the militants, technically speaking, Yaradua has officially declared war on these people fighting for justice. The gauntlet has been thrown down. Therefore, the militants ....****illegal call deleted*****....don't need to wait for the British or/and the Americans to start massacering them before they take them seriously. This issue will be addressed in details in part 6 of my article "How the Niger deltans can get their freedom: The action plan!"

Bode Eluyera
Jul 17, 2008, 12:35 PM
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX This post is not an accusation, but a 'humble request' for clearification. Thank you in advance.

Big-K
Jul 17, 2008, 02:45 PM
Bode,

Lets be clear! Free speech comes with responsibility.

We do encourage responsible free speech here, but would never condone illegal activities. If you want to call for or carry out illegal or violent activities, you WILL have to look for a diferent forum.

And by the way, the country is called NIGERIA!

Nuff said!

Son of the Delta
Jul 17, 2008, 08:16 PM
SOD,
Ilike truth sessions, I hardly argue for sake of argument because I do not enjoy unprofitable ventures, an Ibo man that I am.

At some point I had given myself to considering the side I should belong and I am fully convinced that a break up may not solve our problems.

The Nigerian nation is on course and evolving, it may be slow, but surely moving forward.
What we have is pure recovery form the civil war. Corruption, greed and distrust among the various nationalities that make up Nigeria remains the isuues hampering fast progress. But agitations from all claiming marginalisation is bringing us closer to collective discussion on the way forward.

I do not in anyway trust those presenting themselves as champions and leaders of the new nations that will emerge from disintigration. I see them as men seeking oppurtunities for self actualisation, and personal agrandisement.

Who says they are not working hard to corner states that they will love to be made presidents and governors and ministers. Self interests my dear.

Uduaghan with his 13% created DESOPADEC, DESOPADEC claims to have commissioned over 400projcts in Delter State. That is moving foward.
Our problem has always been sincerity of purpose in leadership.

Nigeria as a Nation has an organised millitary with several decades of experience. If we continue, we will make a more formidable force than the smaller units that will emerge from disintegration.

The banking sector started working after the consolidation, smaller banks merged into bigger ones and we can drop our money and go to sleep.
We are now clamouring for smaller entities,going back to where we are coming from.Making progress in reverse.

Every zone controlling, even 100% of its resourses may not guarantee meaningful progress until we cure the thieving parts of us and learn to do proper planning and management.
Let me stop here for now.

@Chief Kalu,

As you rightly said a break up may or may not solve the problem but the stagnation we witness today may usher in fresh problems and compound the already existing problems.

I did not say that I am for or against Nigeria's division all I wanted to say is that your arguments should be strong.It should as as result of conviction and not comfort.

It will foolish for us to pretend that Nigeria's greatest problem is corruption.

Not in anyway! Nigeria's greatest woes are being caused by tribalism and the centralization of resources.

You cannot tell me for sure that things may not be better in my state or region if the people get more powers or are no more part of that entity.

How do you know I would not get it right when I have not tried it before.

You cannot complain about leadership when leaders are being handpicked by Abuja.

As you said Uduaghan and Delta are moving forward why not give Uduaghan 50 percent of the oil income of his state so that they can move forward faster!

I think this idea of things must remain the same is very wrong.

You may not trust those championing several causes or struggles but they exist because such problems exist and they will exist as long as your government refuses to address the concerns of the people they claim to be championing their cause.
_________________________
_________________________
@Iyaalata,

Why must SoD join the fray? I think you and Eja have debated on that Issue extensively and I dont think there is anything to be said again.

I thank you guys for the effort you made at highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of dividing Nigeria.

Chief Kalu
Jul 18, 2008, 09:11 AM
@Chief Kalu,.

Praise da Lord,SOD is now a gentle man!

As you rightly said a break up may or may not solve the problem but the stagnation we witness today may usher in fresh problems and compound the already existing problems.

The Nation must always show responsibility by discussing with any aggrieved section of the federation. That does not mean that it will condone violent agitation. The reason why it maintains the force.
We must continue to dialougue as pressure arises from dissatisfaction. Pressure, clamour/agitation,is healthy, but all must be carried out with utmost discretion. That is my position.

I did not say that I am for or against Nigeria's division all I wanted to say is that your arguments should be strong.It should as as result of conviction and not comfort.

It will foolish for us to pretend that Nigeria's greatest problem is corruption.

Not in anyway! Nigeria's greatest woes are being caused by tribalism and the centralization of resources.

You cannot tell me for sure that things may not be better in my state or region if the people get more powers or are no more part of that entity.

Are you aware that because of Niger Delta issues, many of th Niger Delter youths pressure companies for emplyment, they get employed, but they stay at home to earn salaries they ever worked for. They believe,as indegenes, they are entitled to money just for being owners of resources. I still acknowledge that we also have indegenes that are hardworking. But it is very demoralizing to find your brothers earning money without working and you are there "slaving" it out in the sun. This is a trend that it worrisome. And I am not kidding.
If this kind of attitude is brought int governance, I am sure, you might be better in the Nigerian state.Money without responsibility will surely lead to disaster.

How do you know I would not get it right when I have not tried it before.

You cannot complain about leadership when leaders are being handpicked by Abuja.

We are handpicking today,if we do not want to handpick tommorrow, then all clamouring for disintegration must channel their energies to making sure that we have a responsible INEC.

As you said Uduaghan and Delta are moving forward why not give Uduaghan 50 percent of the oil income of his state so that they can move forward faster!

I think this idea of things must remain the same is very wrong.
Thing must not remain the same.All interested in a new, better and working Nigeria must wake up from slumber and non constructive crticism to walk the work.
If a state has utilized very well 13%, who says he should be denied a 50%. That is the argument. If with the 13%,all we see is sothfulness and docility in governance,frustration of developmental activity, as you find in the kidnapping of those building roads and bridges, it makes nonsence of any agitation. However, I am tepted to believe that those frustrating development are the real enemies of the State. Rivers State comes to mind in this matter.

You may not trust those championing several causes or struggles but they exist because such problems exist and they will exist as long as your government refuses to address the concerns of the people they claim to be championing their cause.

No wahala, let them exist.The state can handle it. It might even be good for a check, moreso when we have a weak opposition.

Bode Eluyera
Jul 18, 2008, 03:51 PM
Bode,

Lets be clear! Free speech comes with responsibility.

We do encourage responsible free speech here, but would never condone illegal activities. If you want to call for or carry out illegal or violent activities, you WILL have to look for a diferent forum.

And by the way, the country is called NIGERIA!

Nuff said!


BUT, SHOULDN'T WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE BE AS WELL BE GOOD FOR THE GANDER - FOR FAIRNESS?
Big-k,

A VERY BIG THANK YOU for finding the time out of your very bust schedule to reply to my post. I think that this kind of dialogue is important for a mutual understanding in our BELOVED village. I understand your position on this issue, though, I must quickly add that it all depends on from what angle one is looking at it. At the same time Big-k, with all respect, I think you left out the major part of my post/question, and instead focused on what is more convenient for you. Again, please note, this is not an accusation but an observation.

What may come across to some people as violent activities and violence, comes across to others as self defense. By the way, if you can allow me some digression, Have you ever read 'The Fire Next Time' written by James Baldwin? What about 'Parting the waters' written by Taylor Branch? What about 'Moral man and immoral society' written by Reinhold Niebuhr? And what about Malcom-X speeches? Well, if you have not ready any of them, I advise you to do so. Perhaps, after reading these books, you will understand me better. Better to start with Baldwin and Malcom-X.

As you must already be aware, Yaradua has just signed a military pact with the British to massacre the Niger Deltans. Now, if you don't mind my asking you a couple of questions. Assuming that you are from the Niger Delta, how would you feel about the president of your country signing a military pact with its former(?) master to wipe out from the fact of the earth your people for demanding for justice? After Yaradua has signed a military pact with the British, do you expect the militants to lay down their arms and start dancing? Deep in your heart, do you think that Yaradua has exhausted all political avenues to resolve the Niger Delta crisis? Do you think that it is appropriate for Yaradua to sign a military pact with the British to massacre citizens of his country fighting for justice? If somebody brakes into your house to steal your properties and rape your wife, will you sit down and fold your hands and just be watching? Why do you consider a call for people to take up arms and defend their oil and land as illegal and violence? Don't you think that violence begets violence?

Honestly Big-k, believe me, I not only consider myself a responsible person, but as well always strive to act responsibly. But acting responsibly does not mean that you should allow other to run over you, as Yaradua is trying to do with the poor Niger Deltans. So, if you were me, what would advise those guys to do? Lay down their arms and go and beg Mr. Go-Slow? Big-k, I think that for objectivity and progress, sometimes, we just need to be bold enough to call a spade a spade. Whay Yaradua has done is VERY BAD, and I strongly believe that the Niger Delta militants are within their right to do anything possible to fight all their adversaries, including A-S-S-A-S-I-N-A-T-I-N-G whoever is out to massacre them and deprive them of their bonafide properties. THERE IS JUST NO WAY YOU CAN STOP SOMEBODY WHO IS BENT ON ELIMINATING YOU AND TAKING OVER YOUR RESOURCES/PROPERTIES WITHOUT BEING VIOLENT. But, if you know a way to do that without getting violent, I will be obliged if you can tell me.

I also want to recommend my articles titled "How the Niger Delta Can Get their Freedom" especially the part that analysed the Palestine and Israel conflict for more details on my position. Now, I understand that you are not happy with my calling Nigeria 'Nig'geria, I will put that in mind, although it's an open secret that the name of the country, in actual fact, is not 'Nigeria', but 'Nig*geria. Since you have personally requested, and as a show of respect to you, henceforth,I will try to write 'nigeria' as you desire. However, I just want to draw your attention to the fact that I have got used to writing and typing 'Nig.geria' instead of 'Nigeria', therefore, if you come across 'Nig=geria' instead of 'Nigeria', please bear with me, and just regard it as a 'slip of the finger.'

Okay, now, I know that you are not happy with my writing 'Nigeria' as "Nig=geria' and calling for violence, what about my latest article, "How the Niger Deltans can get their freedom: The Action Plan! (part5)" sent for publication 2 weeks ago? I have no idea why it has not yet been published. What do you have against that article? As far as I am concerned that article does not contain any call for violence. Or do you regard an action plan telling people how they can get their freedom a call for violence. By the way, as you are most likely aware, SHOKO wrote to me at least 3 times, asking me to write a CONCRETE PLAN. Therefore, I can't understand why somebody is sitting on my article. It's baffling that after carrying out SHOKO's request, my article can not see the light of the day. I have written a former letter to you - addressed to the admin, about it, but have not got any reply till now. I will appreciate a clearification on this issue. Thanks in advance.

Son of the Delta
Jul 19, 2008, 08:50 PM
Praise da Lord,SOD is now a gentle man!

As you rightly said a break up may or may not solve the problem but the stagnation we witness today may usher in fresh problems and compound the already existing problems.

The Nation must always show responsibility by discussing with any aggrieved section of the federation. That does not mean that it will condone violent agitation. The reason why it maintains the force.
We must continue to dialougue as pressure arises from dissatisfaction. Pressure, clamour/agitation,is healthy, but all must be carried out with utmost discretion. That is my position.

I did not say that I am for or against Nigeria's division all I wanted to say is that your arguments should be strong.It should as as result of conviction and not comfort.

It will foolish for us to pretend that Nigeria's greatest problem is corruption.

Not in anyway! Nigeria's greatest woes are being caused by tribalism and the centralization of resources.

You cannot tell me for sure that things may not be better in my state or region if the people get more powers or are no more part of that entity.

Are you aware that because of Niger Delta issues, many of th Niger Delter youths pressure companies for emplyment, they get employed, but they stay at home to earn salaries they ever worked for. They believe,as indegenes, they are entitled to money just for being owners of resources. I still acknowledge that we also have indegenes that are hardworking. But it is very demoralizing to find your brothers earning money without working and you are there "slaving" it out in the sun. This is a trend that it worrisome. And I am not kidding.
If this kind of attitude is brought int governance, I am sure, you might be better in the Nigerian state.Money without responsibility will surely lead to disaster.

How do you know I would not get it right when I have not tried it before.

You cannot complain about leadership when leaders are being handpicked by Abuja.

We are handpicking today,if we do not want to handpick tommorrow, then all clamouring for disintegration must channel their energies to making sure that we have a responsible INEC.

As you said Uduaghan and Delta are moving forward why not give Uduaghan 50 percent of the oil income of his state so that they can move forward faster!

I think this idea of things must remain the same is very wrong.
Thing must not remain the same.All interested in a new, better and working Nigeria must wake up from slumber and non constructive crticism to walk the work.
If a state has utilized very well 13%, who says he should be denied a 50%. That is the argument. If with the 13%,all we see is sothfulness and docility in governance,frustration of developmental activity, as you find in the kidnapping of those building roads and bridges, it makes nonsence of any agitation. However, I am tepted to believe that those frustrating development are the real enemies of the State. Rivers State comes to mind in this matter.

You may not trust those championing several causes or struggles but they exist because such problems exist and they will exist as long as your government refuses to address the concerns of the people they claim to be championing their cause.

No wahala, let them exist.The state can handle it. It might even be good for a check, moreso when we have a weak opposition.

@Chief Kalu,
Do you want to tell me that the pressure the youths put on people in the Niger Delta is any different from that of the Omo nile in Lagos?

Chief Kalu you are not even truthful to yourself.

Mind you it is up to those that want Nigeria to survive to fight against things like rigging.You cannot fight for what you do not believe in.Perhaps if people like you who believe in Nigeria fight against the evil vices that are tearing up Nigeria you may convince the sceptics to throw away the idea of 'One Nigeria' but if you seat and do nothing the community of 'Nigeria skeptics' will increase rapidly.As long as there is no structural change in Nigeria no justice the fight for justice will continue under any possible way.


Since 1958 people have engaged in dialogue and uptill now nothing has been done.Keno Saro-Wiwa was killed by the evil Nigerian state because of his attempt in engaging them in dialogue.Asari-Dokubo was imprisoned for Dialogue.Many are in prison for dialogue.Yar'Adua attacked the militants after they agreed to dialogue.So in essence the evil Nigerian state has made dialogue look bad and because of the distrust the Niger Deltans have for the evil Nigerian state the the Niger Deltans are calling for international mediators.

From the way you sound it seems as if you are part of the opressive Nigerian system.

What do you mean by utilize? that is jargons!!! Have you called for the Nigerian central government to return all the money to the Niger Delta because they have mismanged it or have you called for the AU or UN to take over management of Nigeria's resources because despots like Abacha,Babangida and Obasanjo stole the Niger Delta's wealth? Please try to be reasonable the fact that money is being stolen or mismanged does not mean the money should not come to the region.More money is being wasted in Abuja but that money does not seem to concern you.

Bode Eluyera
Jul 21, 2008, 02:06 PM
IS THIS THE NIGERIA OF YOUR DREAM?



Squandered oil wealth leaves Nigeria in dark age

By Tume Ahemba ReutersPublished: July 21, 2008



LAGOS: With oil prices at record highs, government coffers in the world's eighth biggest oil exporter are swollen to unprecedented levels.

Yet the vast majority of Nigeria's 140 million people live in no better conditions than their neighbours in West Africa, the least developed region of the world's poorest continent.

The same is true of many of Africa's major oil producers -- including Angola, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea and Chad -- but Nigeria's sheer size and 2-million-barrel-per-day output make the poverty-wealth contrasts more striking.

Nigeria has earned the equivalent in today's terms of nearly $1.2 trillion from oil production over the past four decades, the sort of money that enabled oil-producing Gulf states like Qatar to develop some of the strongest economies in the Arab world.

But its four state-owned refineries are not fully operational, largely due to mismanagement and vandalism, its distribution network is chaotic, and it relies heavily on fuel imports, which cost around $4 billion each year.

Today in Africa & Middle East
Mideast facing choice between crops and waterMbeki to oversee Zimbabwe agreementRice accuses Iran of stalling and threatens sanctions
In Lagos, a mega-city of more than 10 million people, the elite sip champagne on exclusive islands -- albeit to the incessant drone of diesel generators -- while the masses live in mainland slums without water or electricity.

Ask an average Nigerian on the streets of Lagos how he is and he will likely tell you "things dey hard, but we dey manage" -- it's tough but we're getting by.

Healthcare is virtually non-existent, the roads are potholed, unemployment and crime are on the rise, and Nigeria is suffering from spiralling food prices.

"Nigeria is making more money from oil now, but look at the street we are living on," said Efe Oyingbo, pointing to a dirt road where passers-by waddle through muddy waters and motorists try to navigate cavernous, submerged potholes.

A mother of two, her frozen food business in the suburb of Okota has virtually collapsed because she cannot afford the high cost of gasoline.

The government has frozen the price of fuel but retailers have taken advantage of short supplies to more than double the price of diesel in some parts of Nigeria in the last few months.

The number one complaint is a stop-start power supply. Exasperated residents of Lagos call the National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) "Never Expect Power Always".

Nigeria's generation capacity has plunged to less than 1,000 megawatts from 3,000 MW a year ago, largely due to lack of maintenance at power stations. South Africa, with a third of Nigeria's population, has over 10 times that capacity.

Much of Nigeria goes without power for weeks at a time. The crisis has closed hundreds of factories and slashed millions of jobs.

Since taking office a year ago, President Umaru Yar'Adua has been promising to declare a national emergency on power -- during which billions of dollars would be invested in the sector -- most recently saying he will do so this month.

A committee he set up to review the sector said last month Nigeria needs $85 billion to meet its domestic power demand, estimated at roughly 20,000 MW.

That dwarfs the $10 billion former President Olusegun Obasanjo spent on the sector during his eight-year tenure, an amount which failed to deliver on his pledge to raise capacity to 10,000 MW by the end of 2007.

A parliamentary probe showed more than $50 million of that money had been paid to non-existent companies.

Yar'Adua has said his country was also looking for ways of bringing private money into infrastructure investment.

Nigeria's public health system, education and roads are all in a shambles, largely due to corruption and mismanagement during decades of military rule which ended in 1999.

But close to a decade of civilian administration has given Nigerians little to cheer about.

"We've seen over the last few years that the military has no monopoly on ineptitude in government," said Antony Goldman, an independent expert on Nigeria.

"By normal measures, Lagos does not function. It is not organized chaos, there often seems barely the pretence of organization ... People survive in spite of what government does not because of it," he said.

Lagos state governor Babatunde Fashola has acknowledged the problems and said the state must spend more than $700 million over the next five years to improve the road network alone.

Nine out of 10 Nigerians live on less than $2 a day, their lives blighted by poor infrastructure and a lack of public services resulting from decades of endemic corruption.

The cost of rice has climbed dramatically in the past few months, doubling for some varieties. Consumer inflation rose to 9.7 percent in May, fuelled by a sharp rise in food prices.

"We don't sell anymore, you can see the freezer is open," Oyingbo said, sitting with two other women in front of her shop, pointing to an empty freezer in the unlit room.

"This is what we do now, sit and talk about Nigeria and also pray and hope that God will do a new thing."

Alata
Jul 23, 2008, 01:51 PM
I would like to how Big-K will respond to Bode's request in post #124 (http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/board/parallel-threads/73945-nigeria-wisdom-disintegration-parallel-posts-13.html#post4295071960).
Meanwhile, I can continue preparation to circumnavigate the globe.