- Aug 2018
Of course, one can easily ask what makes the West so violent as to invade other countries, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, or Somalia, Mali and Libya for that matter.
I know, I just mentioned Yaruba based on the map for clarification purposes when discussion my point.No, I read and understood the entire opening post. I only commented on the part that I was interested in commenting on. It's not that I didn't understand the larger overall point, which I agree with anyway.
Yeah, I don't know where the map is from but that is not the accurate designation. It is not spelled or pronounced that way ("Yaruba").
The map isn't something accurate though. As I said, Benin City is in the Edo area, and the "Yaruba area of the above map" is something called the Western Region of Nigeria, which is something that was created by the British in 1939, and which lasted until 1963 when that region was divided into the Western Region and the Mid-Western region.
The borders in the map you showed only existed from 1939 to 1963 (and were completely altered even more significantly after 1967) and were also imposed on the region by the British.
No, I didn't "contradict my earlier point". My only earlier point is that your designations and ideas about geography were inaccurate. I didn't ever disagree with the idea that Nigeria should not be one state - it shouldn't. Just as India was partitioned into Pakistan (and then later Bangladesh split from Pakistan as well) and India, Nigeria should have been partitioned into at least 3 countries, but preferably 5 or 6.
In Nigeria there have been many years of violent clashes between Fulani herdsmen (some of them are extremely violent and don't seem to be able to respect other peoples territory/land) and non-Fulani sedentary groups in central Nigeria and occasionally even in parts of southern Nigeria, leading to thousands of deaths. In fact, that conflict has caused more deaths than the conflict with BH.Nigeria, for instance, doesn't suffer from a civil war, even if there's a conflict against Boko Haram. However, this conflict seems to be even less violent than the Mexican Drug War and the Colombian Civil War, as well as the conflict with gangs in Central America. Nigeria's murder rate is only 10 per 100,000 inhabitants. That's about five times the average in the Central American northern triangle and Colombia and at least 2.5 times that of Mexico (and Mexico is notorious for underreporting, with numbers for the drug war at 200,000 deaths by now with over 1 million displaced).
What I was trying to communicate to you is that the region you're calling "Yoruba" was actually the Western Region of Nigeria, and it included groups that were not Yoruba as well, and it was split in 1963 into a Yoruba region and a mostly non-Yoruba speaking region (the Mid-Western region). What I was trying to communicate was that even these three regions were made up by the British colonial administrators in 1939 and were a source of of some tensions (though these intra-regional tensions were not anywhere near as serious as the inter-regional tensions that would develop at the national level, between the different regions), so even these had to be adjusted. Similarly in the Northern region for example, there were numerous groups and huge swathes of territory there that were not part of the Sokoto Caliphate historically. The Nigerian historian Moses Ochonu published a book called Colonialism by Proxy: Hausa Imperial Agents and Middle Belt Consciousness in Nigeria (2014) in which he discusses what extent of the future Northern region of Nigeria was really covered by the Sokoto Caliphate in precolonial Nigeria.The map is accurate based on the point I was making, I am not interested in the semantics about it, the whole point I was making was based on the primary ethnic groups of each "region" that still apply in 2019, I know that Benin City, and the still continuing king lineage, is in the Edo state, but it's still in the Yoruba.
Why is Central America (and for that matter, South America) so violent?In Nigeria there have been many years of violent clashes between Fulani herdsmen (some of them are extremely violent and don't seem to be able to respect other peoples territory/land) and non-Fulani sedentary groups in central Nigeria and occasionally even in parts of southern Nigeria, leading to thousands of deaths. In fact, that conflict has caused more deaths than the conflict with BH.
The conflict in Mali has more to do with the Berber speaking groups there not being given their own country when the borders were drawn and the postcolonial state deciding to insist on keeping the colonial borders.
With regard to murder rate I think you meant to write 5 times less than the Central American northern triangle or 2.5 times less than that Mexico?
That's not relevant.What I was trying to communicate to you is that the region you're calling "Yoruba" was actually the Western Region of Nigeria, and it included groups that were not Yoruba as well, and it was split in 1963 into a Yoruba region and a mostly non-Yoruba speaking region (the Mid-Western region). What I was trying to communicate was that even these three regions were made up by the British colonial administrators in 1939 and were a source of of some tensions (though these intra-regional tensions were not anywhere near as serious as the inter-regional tensions that would develop at the national level, between the different regions), so even these had to be adjusted. Similarly in the Northern region for example, there were numerous groups and huge swathes of territory there that were not part of the Sokoto Caliphate historically. The Nigerian historian Moses Ochonu published a book called Colonialism by Proxy: Hausa Imperial Agents and Middle Belt Consciousness in Nigeria (2014) in which he discusses what extent of the future Northern region of Nigeria was really covered by the Sokoto Caliphate in precolonial Nigeria.
That said, I don't disagree that at least three separate countries would be better than one single country and I do get the overall point.
Drugs and Outside interference are at least good explanations for some countries, the area I call the doom belt (Guatemala, El savador, and Honduras are all in the same patch of land) are like this due to drug funneling and US/Euro intervention that has made these areas the domains of gangsters and drug lords, along with paid off corrupt officials.Why is Central America (and for that matter, South America) so violent?
What's "relevant" is what the people on the ground think, and if Nigeria splits, it won't just be into three regions, although once again those three regions would be far preferable to it remaining one unit. The Nigerian region was never "three regions" in the first place, that was an outside imposition as well made up by British colonial administrators, and it didn't last more than three years once the country was independent. But anyway, this is all a tangent that arose out of me merely correcting some fairly straightforward errors of geography or classification that you made.That's not relevant.
My point was dividing based on regions of stability. Benin as far as I am aware is not actively trying to segregate (with a large number of its population in the state it's in) to secede and as far as i know there isn't animosity between Edo state and the surrounding Yoruba. Which is what I was trying to communicate to you. This is why as communicated to you, I used the above map as an example of a possible split.
Where it's clear that there are issues between the Yaouba and the Igbo, and especially the Yoruba and Igbo to th northern groups.
Much of that is due to USA policies. Guatemala: USA coup in 1954 installs the first of a chain of very bloody dictators, the worst of which in the 1980's had over 200,000 people killed, mostly tortured first. That was all funded by the Reagan Administration.Why is Central America (and for that matter, South America) so violent?
Complete nonsense. There is nothing stopping Africans from peacefully redrawing their borders except for other Africans. Imaginary lines drawn by Europeans do not magically make Africans kill each other, Africans kill each other because they choose to kill each other.One thing that's overlooked when discussing the reasons why several (not all many are doing well despite popular belief, and IMF WorldBank skewing) countries in Africa are in turmoil, is due to the colonial border drawings.
To put things in perspective, up till the late 80's, there were still small states and tribes that had no idea they were part of a "country" draw up by colonials, and generally had no interaction with the "country" at all and some had never seen white people until some came with "shots" and "vaccines" around the same decade (which might explain how some of these states/tribes ended up with aids despite being isolated but that's another subject to discuss).
Now one of the most important things to look at is, since independence, and in many cases before independence, a lot of the major conflicts on the continent were based on conflicts between ethnic groups, which continues on till this day. In fact, almost every major conflict that was sparked at or near the start of independence for almost every "country" were either secession movements or government take overs due to colonial governments picking one ethnic group to be in charge allowing them to pick winners and losers.
Let's look at Nigeria for example:
Before the state of Nigeria existed it was the location of many states: The Youruba empires such as Oyo etc, the remnants of the fallen Kingdom of Dahomey, Igbo related kingdoms, Benin City, and the northern Sokoto Caliphate. There's actual a couple more as well.
The British decided to draw a border around all these conquered empires (and made sure to burn a lot of things in places like Benin city so they can claim there was nothing there as well as parts of Oyo) and call it Nigeria.
Immediately after independence, you saw that the civil war between "NIgeria" and the Biafra, which used to be the where the Igbos dwelled, and for the most part still do. Not only were they attacked by "Nigeria" but also directly by British troops and mercenary volunteers, despite Britain and others advertising the war as a "genocide" and an act of aggression toward Biafra.
Until this day, the demographics is as such:
What you see could have possibly been 3 different countries (Benin city of old is in the Yaruba area).
I still think it's not too late, as it is, the country is being inflated due to the amount of money lost due to constant conflicts in the North that sometimes make their way to the south west.
The capitals are already prepared as well, you can split off the Biafra and make Port Harcourt the capital, Yaruba can make Lagos the Capital, and Abuja can kick out all other ethnic groups and be given to the Ex-Sokoto peoples, who also have the largest land mass.
This would lead each ethnic group to have their own countries, pursue their own goals, and be at relative peace. Except the north will still likely be killing each other, which is also due to colonialism, but that's another story.
Another example would be the Congo(East congo), which even before independence, was having civil wars as the Kingdom of the Congo, and then when the borders were redrawn during colonization, not only were the civil war states in the new DRC, but other states as well, and since right before and right after independence, till today, you have secessionist movements, or other countries like Uganda and Rwanda trying to take land.
Central African Republic? Another Ethnic group skirmish. It goes on and on.
There's many more examples but you get the point. Sometimes these Ethnic clashes are made worse by religious differences as well, Africa has a major issue with crime and violence if the Muslim population is above 10% of the states population if the country is primarily a Christian nation or a mix of christian and traditional religions.
It seems to be that one of the quickest ways to solve a large number of conflicts in Africa is to admit the borders were dumb, and give ethnic groups their own sections to create their own states WITHOUT STOPPING THEM. We've seen it done in Europe (although most of the time it was due to fighting, though Eastern Europe did it without that a few times, even within the last 30 years.) Asia was allowed to do it as well.
But for some reason whenever someone wants to secede or redraw borders in Africa it's stopped by world orgs, European troops and UN troops along with whoever they give weapons to domestically to assist them in stopping said redraw or secession.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out the possible reasons why, one is that having states still set-up like a colony allows Europe in particular to still siphon resources and prevent anyone from getting full control over them. The same group that barely helps with "real" aid. Hence, why you see many countries going to China.
I think it's going to happen sooner or later, we are already seeing an increase of rebel groups getting near modern militaries themselves and it's clear that it is becoming harder and harder for the "governments" to win these conflicts even with help from the outside.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Diminishing importance of quality military leaders?||Military History|
|Importance of Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth in Europe's development?||European History|
|Greatest battles in Antiquity(based on Importance)||Military History|
|Social selection of historical momunents vs physical importance.||Culture / Arts|