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

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,856
India
First point, while conquest the ethnic composition never made sense for Britishers, even regional warlords would rule a multi-ethnic territory, second a multi-ethnic state would ensure that the nationalism against colonial rule shouldn't become strong.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,780
USA
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.
Ethiopians eliminated the European drawn border with Eritrea. That meant that Africans drew their own border. Then Eritreans fought back for decades until finally they got their European drawn border back. That was what happened when Africans drew their own border. That is what I tried to say. This event goes against your claim that European drawn borders is the cause of problems in Africa. African drawn border caused the problem here!
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,627
Benin City, Nigeria
Yes that one thing,
Not just that one thing. I also tried to get across that the map wasn't really accurate as far as what things were like "before the border was drawn" (your words) but I don't think you understood.

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.
I don't know what? What is it you're claiming I 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.
You didn't understand what I wrote. I tried to explain to you that the current Northern Nigerian leadership doesn't care even remotely about splitting up Nigeria so that the region can work better, avoid conflict, and progress, because they couldn't care less about some vague pan-African ideal of making the place thrive but instead are far more concerned with the situation of their own peoples and whether or not they think they would "survive" the split. I never said you were talking about "pan-African ideals", I've tried to explain to you that they (northern Nigerian leaders) mostly have no interest in splitting the country because they're looking at it from another angle, and I gave reasons so that you could understand what that other angle is that they're seeing things from. I said I don't subscribe to the idea that they would necessarily be worse off if they were independent, especially in the long term, but they (northern Nigerian leadership) are most likely not seeing it that way and I gave some of the reasons for their unwillingness to take such a risk. I was pointing out that they (northern Nigerian leaders) don't think in such "pan-African" terms so whether or not other parts of the country outside of their area would thrive and the majority (in terms of population) of the rest of the Nigerian region would improve overall much more quickly if the country were to split isn't something they even care about.

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.
You keep dancing around the reason why the country hasn't been split and acting like your "solutions" aren't obvious and self-evident to everybody already. Everybody already knows these things, but it won't be implemented because of some of the reasons I gave above about the thinking of the northern Nigerian leadership, so unless you think such people are avoiding implementing such a split because of... I don't know, stupidity?...what do you really think is holding back such a split? And please don't say something outrageous like the UN or some vague international forces elsewhere. If it isn't that you think that they're foolishly avoiding the apparent "obvious solution" (which is hardly original of course, and which everybody already knows about), then what other reason is there for such a split not happening today besides the sort of reasons I gave previously?

Secondly, them being landlocked doesn't really strip them of anything, Ethiopia is landlocked, several more stable countries are land locked.
The point of the comment was about whether the northern Nigerian leadership believes they can survive and even progress when independent (which would include being landlocked), not whether they can merely be "stable" - which would itself be uncertain considering that an economically depressed or struggling region which also has some violent religious fanatics and frequent religious clashes within its region might not be able to maintain such stability. And Northern Nigeria is behind Ethiopia development-wise so I'm not sure about the aptness of the comparison, but even Ethiopia had some instability with multiple secessionist groups involved in conflicts there.

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.
The Northern Nigerians that want separation now are a minority - I never said they didn't exist, I have said that "most" don't want it now so for you to say "I'm acting like zero don't" is ridiculous. You know the meaning of "most" if you know the language you're typing in, so don't misrepresent what I wrote.

The last part of this paragraph, that I have put in bold, shows how little you comprehend of what I've been trying to explain to you. You are looking at this from the wrong angle to understand what is happening here. You, myself and nearly every other person from southern Nigeria, or even anyone else outside of Nigeria that has any basic common sense or basic knowledge, can figure out quite easily that "the Northern area bleeds money and has negative impacts on current economic growth" because that is how we're looking at the situation - what will make the region work, progress, develop, etc. better over the long term when looking at the situation for all the groups in the country. The Northern Nigerian leadership is NOT looking at things this way and they DO NOT CARE about whatever negative impacts their region has on the economic progress of the rest of the country. They care about what they can get for themselves out of Nigeria. They are NOT "pan-Africanist" or advocates of any other sort of similar political orientation (and even most of their leaders in the 1950s and 1960s never were; this attitude hasn't really changed) and they DO NOT CARE about whether the Yoruba, Igbo, Ibibio, Efik, Ijaw, etc. can be doing much better on their own if these groups are given their own countries, they care about whether their own Northern peoples will make it, survive, do well and actually thrive if they break apart from Nigeria. And when you try to argue with some of these people or try to explain to them the extent of the cost that their region is having on the rest of Nigeria's progress and explain that they should simply risk going on their own at this point because they (northern Nigerians) are only progressing at a snail pace even in their current state of dependency anyway, while still part of Nigeria, it is like arguing with a stone wall.

Do I need to be more blunt here and explain what the real nature of the northern Nigerian leadership is, and where they really stand in more explicit terms? They don't give a damn about whether or not anything their leaders or their region does holds other groups in the country back from developing at an accelerated or even just a normal pace and their real concern lies with what they can get for their people and what the potential risks to their own people are if Nigeria is divided.
 
Last edited:

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,627
Benin City, Nigeria
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.
What is a "decent amount"? There are countries that are only the size of a city or barely much larger in other parts of the world.

For someone who is apparently from Nigeria
I am from Benin City, Nigeria - the city that you mentioned in your opening post.

Where are you from, anyway? "Area Ocean" isn't a real place. State your own origin clearly and proudly, if you're going to make it a point to question my background.

you seem to be forgetting that the country itself isn't that large,
Once again, why do you think countries need to be big?

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.
What is "one that is good enough to handle resources, production, population"? What size is that?

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,
Why is it that a split of 5 or more is a "mass split" all of sudden when that is just 2 or maybe a few more than the three that you keep mentioning? Actually a split of 5 or more would likely avoid future problems by separating some northern ethnic minorities (particularly majority Christian ones) from Hausas and Fulanis and also separating southern ethnic minorities from any of the two larger southern ethnic groups, if some southern ethnic minorities don't want to be in either of the two southern countries that you propose creating out of the south.

especially when there has to be fair distribution of resources
How do you think you can achieve a "fair distribution of resources" upon splitting the country into 3 that you can't achieve by splitting it into 5 or more? I don't know what resources exactly you're alluding to here, so perhaps you can get into specifics. How does splitting into 3 ensure a "fair distribution of resources" that splitting into some slightly higher number of countries would not?

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,
What are "things these countries would need to develop" specifically? What are you talking about exactly and how have you reached the conclusion that splitting a country into 5 or more would necessarily deprive countries of "things they need to develop" but splitting into 3 would not deprive anyone of anything in terms of resources?

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.
And I explained to you there that I haven't and didn't advocate some split exclusively by ethnic group, which is what you seemed to suggest that I was advocating for. So I don't get this comment. I was explaining that you seemed to be misinterpreting my position.

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?
Look, the map isn't 100% accurate, period. Anyone who is actually Nigerian who saw that map would be shocked at how blatant some of the misrepresentation is.

When people talk about Northern Nigeria being a mostly Hausa-Fulani area they really do mean to refer to the north (far north) of the country, and are not including "Middle Belt" states as "Northern" the way the map you posted mostly is (although that map even includes some of those Middle Belt states under "Igbo" somehow, which is also strange).

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.
In Nigeria, the population of certain cities in the south is deliberately under counted (the city of Ibadan, in the Yoruba part of Nigeria, is a pretty notorious example of this, its population is much larger than what "official" figures will allow it to have; the population of Lagos is also likely to be significantly larger than what official figures state), so the population ratios of the three larger groups should be viewed more as vague approximations not as something so definite. In any case, the "Hausa-Fulani" plurality given by the official/"accepted" population figures is barely a plurality at all - their percentage of the total population even going by those figures isn't that much more than the population of either of the two largest southern ethnic groups.

On population misrepresentation in Nigeria, these are some sources available online that you can read, but if you doubt that this is a real thing, just ask an actual southern Nigerian (if you actually know any in real life, which I very much doubt) about that practice:





It's not so straightforward as "group X is significantly larger than group Y because some questionable government census figures say so". This is fairly common knowledge to people who actually know about what's going on in Nigeria though...

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.
The groups in Edo state aren't in constant conflict with anyone, and the same can be said for most other states in the south; I never said or suggested otherwise.

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.
No, I'm not being deceptive. I asked a straightforward question. What do you think these issues are? You didn't really answer that straightforward question as it pertains to those two groups specifically (your example of the governor of Ebonyi state doesn't answer the question specifically about what issues you think exist between the two groups). All you said was something about how other "ethnic groups that took power" underfunded the Igbo or ignored them (swept them aside) - which I don't even disagree with in general, especially when talking about military rulers of Nigeria of northern origin - but my question was about issues between just those two groups (I wanted to know what you thought these issues were). There has only been one Yoruba president of Nigeria (Olusegun Obasanjo; Ernest Shonekan was just an interim president appointed to that position for a few months, not a real president), and that accusation (that Obasanjo ignored or underfunded the Igbo area) might be valid against him as an individual (although he had multiple Igbo people in his cabinet in his 2nd term, and I don't know how serious his supposed bias against the Igbo really is, considering the background of some of his close friends (such as Chukwuma Nzeogwu) or associates - it might be significant, or it might not be). But his own Yoruba people never wanted him to be president anyway. They didn't vote for him, but overwhelmingly voted for his opponent in 1999, and the other election he "won" seems to basically have been rigged or riddled with numerous irregularities. So you think the issue between the two groups is "the one Yoruba president that Nigeria has had (the one person from that ethnic group that has "taken power" as you put it), who was somebody the majority of his own Yoruba people wouldn't even vote for and didn't even want to be president of Nigeria in the first place, underfunded or ignored the Igbo area when he was in office"? I think these two groups have enough real or merely supposed animosity or rivalry as it is and it's not necessary to amplify or exaggerate the extent of their apparent rivalry/beef/animosity to something beyond what it actually is.
 
Last edited:

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,627
Benin City, 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?
I forgot to mention something in my last post. As I mentioned, the population ratios of the three largest groups should be taken more as guidelines, not exact percentages, since there is some manipulation of population figures going on in terms of the "acceptable" or "official" figures that are given. But even if one accepts the widely reported or most commonly used figure that claims that Hausas and Fulanis together make up 29% of Nigeria's population, and take into account that all of the non-southern states (the northernmost states + the central "Middle Belt" states) of Nigeria are believed to constitute about half of Nigeria's population (give or take a percentage point or two) while the southern states constitute the other half, this means one is left with the non-Hausa, non-Fulani population in the Northern area and the Middle Belt area combined (which is what the area portrayed as northern Nigeria on that map in the OP basically is) constituting 21% of Nigeria's population. 29% compared to 21%. That 8% difference does not mean the area is suddenly a "giant Hausa Fulani area". That isn't any kind of overwhelmingly majority but instead just a slim majority - a bit more than half.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2019
39
Area Ocean
Ethiopians eliminated the European drawn border with Eritrea. That meant that Africans drew their own border. T
No they didn't, it was given to Ethiopia after WW2, Eriteria didn't want to be part of Ethiopia, that's where the wars came from.

The cause of that disgust was due to the fact the colonists held Eriteria for a long period of time.

You're taking something really simple and trying to make it complicated for bias sake which isn't really smart.

Every single country that had multiple different ethnic groups with no similarities to sync together were all in conflict after independence. Some before independence, which was done intentionally. Every attempt by these same nations to redraw or secede were stopped by the ex-colonizers.

This isn't a debate you can possibly win you can't find one example that breaks this rule, it's 100% consistent across the board, to pretend the colonies had nothing to do with it is just baffling stupidity. This is why you drawed using false comparisons the problem is no other regions came close to having any similar problem when they were colonized, it doesn't exist, this is a unique situation and you're desperately trying and failing to try and hand waive it. Issue is if people kept thinking like you then nothing would get solved.

We've already seen nations that got rid of some of those obstacles become stable and among the fastest developing on the continent there is no coincidence.
 
Aug 2018
563
london
No they didn't, it was given to Ethiopia after WW2, Eriteria didn't want to be part of Ethiopia, that's where the wars came from.

The cause of that disgust was due to the fact the colonists held Eriteria for a long period of time.

You're taking something really simple and trying to make it complicated for bias sake which isn't really smart.

Every single country that had multiple different ethnic groups with no similarities to sync together were all in conflict after independence. Some before independence, which was done intentionally. Every attempt by these same nations to redraw or secede were stopped by the ex-colonizers.

This isn't a debate you can possibly win you can't find one example that breaks this rule, it's 100% consistent across the board, to pretend the colonies had nothing to do with it is just baffling stupidity. This is why you drawed using false comparisons the problem is no other regions came close to having any similar problem when they were colonized, it doesn't exist, this is a unique situation and you're desperately trying and failing to try and hand waive it. Issue is if people kept thinking like you then nothing would get solved.

We've already seen nations that got rid of some of those obstacles become stable and among the fastest developing on the continent there is no coincidence.

Still can't think of any examples in response to my question?
 
Oct 2019
39
Area Ocean
That 8% difference does not mean the area is suddenly a "giant Hausa Fulani area". That isn't any kind of overwhelmingly majority but instead just a slim majority - a bit more than half.
Which isn't what the map is saying. It's talking about the TOTAL NORTHERN POPULATION OF NORTHERN NIGERIA, which is H&F. It's not saying every state is the north is 100% H&F. How i it so hard for you to read a simple map? Almost every argument you've presented was made up by yourself.

Yes, there are millions from other groups that are in the central states (I never said there weren't) but that doesn't mean there aren't any H&F there.

If you look at demographic reports from Nigeria (recent ones) while it may not be exactly "99%" as the map says it's clear the vast majority in the "northern region" are H&F and the further up you go the less the other groups show up yes.

However, there are still a good number of H*F in the central regions and when thats added with the rest it does place them as the biggest ethnic group by far in the northern region.

Nothing complicated here at all. The same logic applies to Yoruba and Igbo zones.
 
Oct 2019
39
Area Ocean
Not just that one thing. I also tried to get across that the map wasn't really accurate as far as what things were like "before the border was drawn" (your words) but I don't think you understood.



I don't know what? What is it you're claiming I don't know?



You didn't understand what I wrote. I tried to explain to you that the current Northern Nigerian leadership doesn't care even remotely about splitting up Nigeria so that the region can work better, avoid conflict, and progress, because they couldn't care less about some vague pan-African ideal of making the place thrive but instead are far more concerned with the situation of their own peoples and whether or not they think they would "survive" the split. I never said you were talking about "pan-African ideals", I've tried to explain to you that they (northern Nigerian leaders) mostly have no interest in splitting the country because they're looking at it from another angle, and I gave reasons so that you could understand what that other angle is that they're seeing things from. I said I don't subscribe to the idea that they would necessarily be worse off if they were independent, especially in the long term, but they (northern Nigerian leadership) are most likely not seeing it that way and I gave some of the reasons for their unwillingness to take such a risk. I was pointing out that they (northern Nigerian leaders) don't think in such "pan-African" terms so whether or not other parts of the country outside of their area would thrive and the majority (in terms of population) of the rest of the Nigerian region would improve overall much more quickly if the country were to split isn't something they even care about.



You keep dancing around the reason why the country hasn't been split and acting like your "solutions" aren't obvious and self-evident to everybody already. Everybody already knows these things, but it won't be implemented because of some of the reasons I gave above about the thinking of the northern Nigerian leadership, so unless you think such people are avoiding implementing such a split because of... I don't know, stupidity?...what do you really think is holding back such a split? And please don't say something outrageous like the UN or some vague international forces elsewhere. If it isn't that you think that they're foolishly avoiding the apparent "obvious solution" (which is hardly original of course, and which everybody already knows about), then what other reason is there for such a split not happening today besides the sort of reasons I gave previously?



The point of the comment was about whether the northern Nigerian leadership believes they can survive and even progress when independent (which would include being landlocked), not whether they can merely be "stable" - which would itself be uncertain considering that an economically depressed or struggling region which also has some violent religious fanatics and frequent religious clashes within its region might not be able to maintain such stability. And Northern Nigeria is behind Ethiopia development-wise so I'm not sure about the aptness of the comparison, but even Ethiopia had some instability with multiple secessionist groups involved in conflicts there.



The Northern Nigerians that want separation now are a minority - I never said they didn't exist, I have said that "most" don't want it now so for you to say "I'm acting like zero don't" is ridiculous. You know the meaning of "most" if you know the language you're typing in, so don't misrepresent what I wrote.

The last part of this paragraph, that I have put in bold, shows how little you comprehend of what I've been trying to explain to you. You are looking at this from the wrong angle to understand what is happening here. You, myself and nearly every other person from southern Nigeria, or even anyone else outside of Nigeria that has any basic common sense or basic knowledge, can figure out quite easily that "the Northern area bleeds money and has negative impacts on current economic growth" because that is how we're looking at the situation - what will make the region work, progress, develop, etc. better over the long term when looking at the situation for all the groups in the country. The Northern Nigerian leadership is NOT looking at things this way and they DO NOT CARE about whatever negative impacts their region has on the economic progress of the rest of the country. They care about what they can get for themselves out of Nigeria. They are NOT "pan-Africanist" or advocates of any other sort of similar political orientation (and even most of their leaders in the 1950s and 1960s never were; this attitude hasn't really changed) and they DO NOT CARE about whether the Yoruba, Igbo, Ibibio, Efik, Ijaw, etc. can be doing much better on their own if these groups are given their own countries, they care about whether their own Northern peoples will make it, survive, do well and actually thrive if they break apart from Nigeria. And when you try to argue with some of these people or try to explain to them the extent of the cost that their region is having on the rest of Nigeria's progress and explain that they should simply risk going on their own at this point because they (northern Nigerians) are only progressing at a snail pace even in their current state of dependency anyway, while still part of Nigeria, it is like arguing with a stone wall.

Do I need to be more blunt here and explain what the real nature of the northern Nigerian leadership is, and where they really stand in more explicit terms? They don't give a damn about whether or not anything their leaders or their region does holds other groups in the country back from developing at an accelerated or even just a normal pace and their real concern lies with what they can get for their people and what the potential risks to their own people are if Nigeria is divided.
You're trying way to hard to be right and act like you have some know it all standing due to your longevity here but that doesn't work.

Nothing you're saying is relevant to the original point, your making long rants including variables that weren't even part of the original discussion. What we call ego stroking.

There is no comprehension issue, you just want to complicate things to make it seems like you're smarter than you actually are.

The actual originally point was if there would be a split today it would be along those lines with OTHER separate problems dealt with later, including whether or not other ethnic groups amongst the big 3, would like to split also.

The big 3 are the biggest group in the region and they run all 3 of those zones as the main power of government in each of those zones is run by the largest ethnic groups in those zones. This doesn't take much though to realize yet you keep failing to comprehend this and instead are just making up a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with the original point, which was simple.

I have said that "most" don't want it now so for you to say "I'm acting like zero don't" is ridiculous.
No, that's how you typed it out, it's not my fault you don't proofread your posts and put statements in a context that can be easily misunderstood.

Also the issue of whether the north wants to split is not relevant to the original point and concept. That's an additional thing you added trying to push more variables in the conversation.


was about whether the northern Nigerian leadership believes they can survive and even progress when independent
Which isn't relevant and wouldn't be much different than right now. Their issues effect the other regions. That's also arguably the primary part of Nigeria that made the Biafra happen in the first place. At the very least the other two zones would benefit by not having their issues effect the rest o the country when split up.

The Northern Nigerian leadership is NOT looking at things this way and they DO NOT CARE about whatever negative impacts their region has on the economic progress of the rest of the country. They care about what they can get for themselves out of Nigeria. They are NOT "pan-Africanist" or advocates of any other sort of similar political orientation
What does this have to do with anything? You're imagining things that never actually happened, where are you getting this "pan african" stuff from our discussion about the country splitting into 3 states? I never even said the North did or did not care. You're completely lost.

The only reason why I mentioned the damage and the bleeding money is because it supports an argument for the other two zones to split because the issue is there is ZERO benefit for Nigeria to still include the Northern Hausau are of the country. ZERO.

In fact your long paragraph basically said the same thing I've been saying. So I don't even understand what your issue with my statement is, at least in this part of your response. Everyone already knows the North is barely progressing, if at all, in fact, people use the north to insult Nigeria outside of Nigeria, and ignore the developments in the south, especially those with racial bias, as I said, the region has zero benefit to Nigeria.