Importance of Borders: Almost every major conflict in Africa is based on Ethnic/Secession disputes caused by Colonial drawn borders.

Oct 2019
95
West Virginia
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.






Very simplistic. No, it is not easy to change borders, once vested interests are in place. Try changing some borders in Europe and see how that goes...

With countries set up to fail, to remain dependent, and with Western-backed corrupt governments in place, social dysfunction and conflict is inevitable.

Africans no more than Bosnians or Irish or anyone else "choose to kill each other". They are propelled by social forces just as surely as a soldier drafted into a war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sundiata1
Aug 2018
274
America
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?
Yes, five times less, that's what I meant. Central American and Colombian murder rate is at about 50 murders per 100,000 inhabitants and Mexico at 25.
 
Oct 2019
39
Area Ocean
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.

What are these issues between the Yoruba and the Igbo? (I know what issues/examples people commonly cite, but I want to see what you think these issues are...)
Stop the smugness, you didn't correct anything. What you stated is irrelevant to my point.

The issue was about splitting them into countries (preferably with good land mass) where there would be stability, if we do is exclusively my ethnic group there would be like 8 states which is not necessary, at least if there was talk of splitting now in the current time, other issues may evolve later.

That map is highly accurate in terms of concentration for the biggest groups in the region and the groups within those regions would relatively be much better if it split in 3 (although the north would still have some conflicts that would likely lead to further splits down the line.)

Also the fact you seem to live in Nigeria and are acting like there aren't any issues between the Yoruba and IGBO despite Igbo people and leaders saying otherwise is bizarre. Generall almost every ethnic group that tool power swept Igboland region aside or underfunded them, hence the issues with Eboyi state before the current guy managed to evolve it with the limited funding he had, and he had to say Ebonyi "isn't biafra" in order to get the support he did. He did a good job btw.

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.






Not sure what that link has to do with anything, but Asia and Europe were fighting over borders for lesser reasons, the Africans have numerous excuses not just the border but issues related to the border as well, that at least make more sense in hindsight than half the non-invasion borders that were drawn that caused fights in Europe and Asia.

As I mentioned you can't deny that with around 60-70 years of data, 50 for the shorter colonized countires, it's a fact across the board the similar cultured ethnic groups or the homogeneous ethnic groups in africa all have relatively stable and quickly developing countries. There is no reason to believe this wouldn't continue by splitting the groups up fairly with their own borders and nations.

The ethnic tensions facilitated by badly drawn borders are not the root of the problem. They are a tool by which the real goal of the colonial powers has been accomplished, which is to prevent African autonomy and continue to control and profit from the ex-colonies.

This was explained decades ago by Kwame Nkrumah in Neocolonialism, how the UK set up Ghana to fail and to remain forever dependent.

This plan of making every bit of Africa a sub-set of the Western world, but a peripheral component, a provider of raw materials and labor, an economically underdeveloped and dependent sector. Julius Nyerere in Uhuru na Ujamaa affirmed that the social, cultural and intellectual resources existed in Africa to formulate its own post-colonial development, that either the Western or the Soviet models constituted just more Euroimperialism to keep Africa dependent on European nations.

Western European powers used bad borders after WW1 to ensure that Hungary would remain weak, redrawing the map so that ethnic Hungarians now resided as minorities in several other nations.

And the ploy in Africa plays on African history, because sure enough just like the Europeans, African ethnic groups/nations conquered, subjugated and oppressed each other on many occasions. That is why certain nations were trading slaves and others providing most of the slaves.

Is it only coincidental that the 2 religions inspiring extensive violence in Africa are those of the 2 groups who did most of the slaving... Arabs and Europeans?
Christianity was in Africa before the Europeans even entered the picture.

Otherwise parts of what you say are true, it's part of the reason why some African leaders more to China after accusations.

It also is why France has the largest military presence on the continent and is constantly trying to maintain control and force use of CFA franc. Several prominent French said that France future outlook looked bad without these countries.

But this goes back to the other thread about administration zones as well, the colonies were never developed to be real countries unlike what we saw with most asian countries.

At the end of the day, the best solution is to split off African countries so they can control the resource destroying this new neocolonialism you are mentioning.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,627
Benin City, Nigeria
Stop the smugness, you didn't correct anything. What you stated is irrelevant to my point.
You thought Dahomey had been in Nigeria because you saw it on a bad map somewhere online and you think I didn't correct anything?

Maybe instead of asking me to "stop the smugness" you should drop the arrogance. There's a lot you clearly don't know yet. You mentioned "stability" for example. Do you even comprehend why I brought up from the start the issue of whether the majority of northern Nigerians want separation at the present time? Because something relevant to the issue of "stability" is economic prosperity, trade and resources. At the present time there is no major trans-Saharan trade or intra-regional "Sahelian/Western Sudan"-wide trade network like they were tapped into in the past,.and they (northern Nigerians) do not have access to the sea coast (they would be landlocked), and most areas of northern Nigeria are far behind in education even compared to many other parts of Africa or at least west Africa because of certain trends that occurred during the colonial era (that I mentioned in this post in another thread), and while their lands have many resources, they don't really have the education/expertise/know-how to optimally exploit these resources at the present time. I'm not saying that them becoming independent would be worse than their apparent dependent condition in the present, I'm just saying their situation isn't straightforward at all. Stop assuming that they are idiots. If dissolving Nigeria into smaller parts that actually make sense as countries is what would help Nigeria avoid conflict and move forward in terms of development, and they (northern Nigerian leaders) are the ones mainly standing in the way of that (and if you don't know that they are...), has it occurred to you that they could have a reason for this? They're not idiots. They know what they're doing. They are out for their own people's interest, not into some sort of "pan-African" idealist plan to accelerate the region's development as a whole over the long term by splitting the country, if it might come at significant cost/expense to their well being or survival right now with no certainty that they would be able to pull themselves out of that potential quagmire if they were to go independent.

The issue was about splitting them into countries (preferably with good land mass)
What is "good land mass"? Do you understand that this principle/idea that countries have to be large to thrive (they definitely don't, and this principle definitely is not adhered to when talking about European and Asian countries) is one of the most persistent arguments that people resort to when trying to insist that Nigeria must be kept as one country? I even had to argue against that idea in another thread on here (that I just linked above) where one guy who kept insisting that Nigeria should remain one country kept on going on about Nigeria's "potential" from being a large country etc. So I hope by "good land mass" you mean something very different from "as large as some arbitrary standard of size that I think is necessary for a country to do well".

where there would be stability, if we do is exclusively my ethnic group there would be like 8 states which is not necessary, at least if there was talk of splitting now in the current time, other issues may evolve later.
I haven't suggested that the country - or other countries in Africa - be split exclusively by ethnic group, and I have instead on this forum repeatedly suggested that grouping people according to similarity of culture would be ideal and I have even pointed out that some of the precolonial states were essentially like that - they were cultural groupings, not merely ethnic/linguistic groupings. Some of them were multi-ethnic but there was largely a shared culture.

That map is highly accurate in terms of concentration for the biggest groups in the region and the groups within those regions would relatively be much better if it split in 3 (although the north would still have some conflicts that would likely lead to further splits down the line.)
No...it's not as accurate as you think as far as the northern region is concerned. The northern region of Nigeria sure as hell wasn't/isn't just one big Hausa/Fulani Sokoto caliphate area. Looking at a linguistic map of Nigeria might give you a clue about that.

Also the fact you seem to live in Nigeria and are acting like there aren't any issues between the Yoruba and IGBO despite Igbo people and leaders saying otherwise is bizarre. Generall almost every ethnic group that tool power swept Igboland region aside or underfunded them, hence the issues with Eboyi state before the current guy managed to evolve it with the limited funding he had, and he had to say Ebonyi "isn't biafra" in order to get the support he did. He did a good job btw.
Did you even understand my post? I didn't "act like there aren't any issues between the Yoruba and Igbo". I wanted to know what you thought these issues were. If you don't want to answer that's fine.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2018
563
london
As I mentioned you can't deny that with around 60-70 years of data, 50 for the shorter colonized countires, it's a fact across the board the similar cultured ethnic groups or the homogeneous ethnic groups in africa all have relatively stable and quickly developing countries. There is no reason to believe this wouldn't continue by splitting the groups up fairly with their own borders and nations.
There's nothing stopping Africans from doing that if they agree to it. Your claim that 'world orgs', 'European and UN troops' somehow stop Africans from voluntarily redrawing their borders is complete nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2019
39
Area Ocean
You thought Dahomey had been in Nigeria because you saw it on a bad map somewhere online and you think I didn't correct anything?

Maybe instead of asking me to "stop the smugness" you should drop the arrogance. There's a lot you clearly don't know yet. You mentioned "stability" for example. Do you even comprehend why I brought up from the start the issue of whether the majority of northern Nigerians want separation at the present time? Because something relevant to the issue of "stability" is economic prosperity, trade and resources. At the present time there is no major trans-Saharan trade or intra-regional "Sahelian/Western Sudan"-wide trade network like they were tapped into in the past,.and they (northern Nigerians) do not have access to the sea coast (they would be landlocked), and most areas of northern Nigeria are far behind in education even compared to many other parts of Africa or at least west Africa because of certain trends that occurred during the colonial era (that I mentioned in this post in another thread), and while their lands have many resources, they don't really have the education/expertise/know-how to optimally exploit these resources at the present time. I'm not saying that them becoming independent would be worse than their apparent dependent condition in the present, I'm just saying their situation isn't straightforward at all. Stop assuming that they are idiots. If dissolving Nigeria into smaller parts that actually make sense as countries is what would help Nigeria avoid conflict and move forward in terms of development, and they (northern Nigerian leaders) are the ones mainly standing in the way of that (and if you don't know that they are...), has it occurred to you that they could have a reason for this? They're not idiots. They know what they're doing. They are out for their own people's interest, not into some sort of "pan-African" idealist plan to accelerate the region's development as a whole over the long term by splitting the country, if it might come at significant cost/expense to their well being or survival right now with no certainty that they would be able to pull themselves out of that potential quagmire if they were to go independent.



What is "good land mass"? Do you understand that this principle/idea that countries have to be large to thrive (they definitely don't, and this principle definitely is not adhered to when talking about European and Asian countries) is one of the most persistent arguments that people resort to when trying to insist that Nigeria must be kept as one country? I even had to argue against that idea in another thread on here (that I just linked above) where one guy who kept insisting that Nigeria should remain one country kept on going on about Nigeria's "potential" from being a large country etc. So I hope by "good land mass" you mean something very different from "as large as some arbitrary standard of size that I think is necessary for a country to do well".



I haven't suggested that the country - or other countries in Africa - be split exclusively by ethnic group, and I have instead on this forum repeatedly suggested that grouping people according to similarity of culture would be ideal and I have even pointed out that some of the precolonial states were essentially like that - they were cultural groupings, not merely ethnic/linguistic groupings. Some of them were multi-ethnic but there was largely a shared culture.



No...it's not as accurate as you think as far as the northern region is concerned. The northern region of Nigeria sure as hell wasn't/isn't just one big Hausa/Fulani Sokoto caliphate area. Looking at a linguistic map of Nigeria might give you a clue about that.



Did you even understand my post? I didn't "act like there aren't any issues between the Yoruba and Igbo". I wanted to know what you thought these issues were. If you don't want to answer that's fine.

Yes that one thing, and yes you should drop the smugness because almost everything else you've mentioned is not relevant to the point.A point that was also addressed by Nigerians themselves,s which again considering your location claim, is odd you don't know.

Your first large paragraph doesn't really matter. You're now arguing semantics and and useless points, you clearly have false presumptions based on the fct you think I'm talking about "pan african ideals" and need to step back for a second.

In the event of such a split happening to day, based on the current stability of the regions and the settled populations, that's how they would be split. You can deal with other issues with Northern Nigeria later, but this nonsense about them "being stupid" wasn't even implied by me just something you pulled out your ass.

Secondly, them being landlocked doesn't really strip them of anything, Ethiopia is landlocked, several more stable countries are land locked. This is about splitting Nigeria into 3 relatively better states than this combined mess that is currently called Nigeria that would but each region into a better positions of development and negotiation with the smaller groups which at the moment as Nigeria is now, isn't possible. Whether Northern Nigerians NOW want separation or not (and many due you're acting like ZERO don't, which while the latter has the most voices isn't 100% lopsided.) is not relevant due to the other two groups wanting to split and still having loud voices calling for splits, and the fact the conflicts in the North and other regions are moving across the country which you yourself said. Maybe you could give them some help to get started during the split but otherwise there's really zero benefit to even the current country of Nigeria by having the Northern area there as it bleeds money and had negative impacts on current economic growth, it can't work.


What is "good land mass"? Do you understand that this principle/idea that countries have to be large to thrive (they definitely don't, and this principle definitely is not adhered to when talking about European and Asian countries) is one of the most persistent arguments that people resort to when trying to insist that Nigeria must be kept as one country?
Do you realize this statement has zero relevance and is deceptive, because the map I shown above doesn't give Yoruba and Igbo " Large land" all I said was "good land mass" as in a decent amount. For someone who is apparently from Nigeria you seem to be forgetting that the country itself isn't that large, especially if we take the Northern Islamic areas out of the picture and only focus on the Yoruba and Igno dense areas, I don't think that if South East Nigeria was split up it would be a :large mass" but one that is good enough to handle resources, production, population, etc.

Once things are settled and Benin or other ethnic groups that want to form states can negotiate, a mass split like your suggesting of 5 or more would likely cause problems that should be obvious, especially when there has to be fair distribution of resources and everything has to be drawn to include things these countries would need to develop instead of just splitting up to split up as you want. We've seen how that works,

I haven't suggested that the country - or other countries in Africa - be split exclusively by ethnic group, and I have instead on this forum repeatedly suggested that grouping people according to similarity of culture would be ideal and I have even pointed out that some of the precolonial states were essentially like that - they were cultural groupings, not merely ethnic/linguistic groupings. Some of them were multi-ethnic but there was largely a shared culture.
\

Which is also something I mentioned in this thread a few times so uh??? I said either an ethnic group split or similar groups. I even mentioned Rwanda for an example which only had a conflict because of colonial influence that pitted the groups against each other. In this thread.

No...it's not as accurate as you think as far as the northern region is concerned. The northern region of Nigeria sure as hell wasn't/isn't just one big Hausa/Fulani Sokoto caliphate area. Looking at a linguistic map of Nigeria might give you a clue about that.
What does Linguistics have to do with anything? That map is 100% still accurate for the actual population of those three groups, the biggest ethnic groups in Nigeria. You can't be serious suggesting that Northern Nigeria isn't a giant Hausa Fulani area when they are the majority of the norths population?

Don't forget that among the entire country of Nigeria the Hausa have the plurality among the total population and they are all mostly concentrated in the north. The Yoruba are the vast majority group in their zone, as well as the Igbo in the South East, yeah sure there are some other ethnic groups there,s some even have millions, and yet they don't seem to have as much of a cultural and background clash with the group over them. Last I checked, the groups around Edo aren't in constant conflict with the Yoruba for example.

Did you even understand my post? I didn't "act like there aren't any issues between the Yoruba and Igbo". I wanted to know what you thought these issues were. If you don't want to answer that's fine.
Actually you're being deceptive here, your original post can clearly be interpreted the way I did, and now your trying to act like you were not implying there weren't any issues. What's more is that I did mention at least one issue in my response, which you ignored here. Therefore telling me that you are too busy trying to score points that have a discussion.
 
Oct 2019
39
Area Ocean
There's nothing stopping Africans from doing that if they agree to it. Your claim that 'world orgs', 'European and UN troops' somehow stop Africans from voluntarily redrawing their borders is complete nonsense.
No, whats ridiculous is you denying historical fact by denying that almost every border redraw or secession movement was stopped by the very groups you mentioned.

You also dodged my mention of Europe and Asia, and looking at your history you seem to be an overly simple poster that has a bias and restricts things in absolute black and white terms with no elaboration while ignoring background and context.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,780
USA
You basically said that borders caused conflict yet said that Europeans FORCING borders on Africans didn't contribute the the ethnic clashes that started BECAUSE of the border drawing in many cases BEFORE independence.

There's nothing to blame the Africans for, especially since that attempts t fix the problem were stopped by, you guessed it, European ex-colonial powers and mercenaries. While many other areas in the world colonized, most were allowed to draw their borders along ethnic lines, except Africa, and societies the colonists themselves split the colony in that way and left it that way when they left. But again, not in Africa.

Again, it's easy to blame the Africans when you don't look at context and do some critical thinking on the historical background.

With that said, not every country in turmoil is based on ethnic/religious lines, just most of them, the others could be blamed on the governments.
Last time Africans fixed their own borders was between Ethiopia and Eritrea. That ended up in decades of war, and creation of an independent Eritrea. So I don't understand this urge to blame the European drawn borders for African conflicts. Actually it was Europeans who drew the borders of almost all countries on the globe.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2019
39
Area Ocean
Last time Africans fixed their own borders was between Ethiopia and Eritrea. That ended up in decades of war, and creation of an independent Eritrea. So I don't understand this urge to blame the European drawn borders for African conflicts. Actually it was Europeans who drew the borders of almost all countries on the globe.
There's a lot wrong here.

The first is Eriteria and Ethiopia didn't "fix" their borders, the borders were originally drawn at the start of the conflict between the two by Italy.

Another issue here is Ethiopia wasn't a colony by again, Eriteria was, and it's borders were again, drawn by italy, and the colony was influenced by italy to the point that many Eriterians speak italian.

Yes the Europeans are the issue.

Another problem you have is flawed logic, first of all, your last sentence isn't accurate, secondly, the ones they did outside of Africa outside certain exceptions either drew around like groups or in many many cases, homogenous groups, they did not draw borders around Hong kong, Vietnam and Korea and call it one country.

They didn't take Thailand, laos, and Cambodia and made them all one country.

That's the problem with flawed comparisons, which also seems to be entirely lopsided toward Africa than any other place in the world.

Again for most countries yes it's the Europeans fault, and yes the Europeans along with others are preventing the correction of the borders, and the problems that spawned from it. This is not something that happened on any large scaled anywhere else in the world and poor comparisons with zero context and dissimilar backgrounds don't work.

It's very easy to say "what about X" or "It' not x's fault it's y;s fault" when you don't use critical thinking and break down the context, history/events leading up to the source of the current issue.
 
Aug 2018
563
london
No, whats ridiculous is you denying historical fact by denying that almost every border redraw or secession movement was stopped by the very groups you mentioned.
Give me an example where Africans agreed to redraw their borders but were forced by 'world orgs', European or UN troops to keep their current borders.