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

Oct 2019
39
Area Ocean
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.



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.



Once again, why do you think countries need to be big?



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



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.



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?



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?



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.



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).



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 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.
Misrepresenting my posts isn't really helping you here.

For one I never said a country should be "large" and I mentioned this before as well but you ignored my statement on that twice. Do you know what large is? I even said that the map would be a good example of the size I'm talking about for Igbo and Yoruba, those wouldn't be "large". I also don't know why you keep hanging on the issue of land mass size all I said was "decent land mass" and Igboland and Yoruba land on that map if split from Nigeria would give the two "decent" sized states. Just enough for the populations to work within them. It is the most populated country on the continent as is presently.

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
H&F are the major plurality of ethnic groups and almost all of them are in the north, there is no "splitting" the northern area if we actually want to be realistic, the very small minority can be moved to Igbo or Yoruba territory and possibly might get some land after that. Splitting the north itself won't work and would likely create more conflicts with the jihadis which already made all or almost all the states in their area Sharia zones.

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).
Look man, I know you want to argue semantics, but by Region those maps are correct. Cumulatively, the majority ethnic group in the north is H&F. Sure the lower areas, especially around the capital, will have a large amount of other groups, yet that doesn't remove the fact the northern region is still majority H&F. You're acting like I'm saying every northern state is 100% H&F which i never said. Not once.

Cumulatively the numbers are the same no matter what.

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.
This is a flawed argument, the H alone is the plurality of all the other ethnic groups 1-1 and H&F together is even bigger and almost all of H&F's population is in the north were most of the Yoruba and Igbo Population are south west and south east.

The point that flew over your head was that if H&F are the plurality and they are almost all located in the north, that would mean that almost all the population of the north is H&F. You seem to be trying to turn it to a H&F vs. Yoruba dick measuring contest which isn't what I was trying to do. The population of Lagos is irrelevant to the argument.

But see I figure that you're likely some white guy posing as a Nigeria (do you even know any?) who keeps twisting peoples words out of desperation. It's the only reason why you keep arguing semantics or adding variables not part of the original conversation while taking shitty jabs at me about me "knowing" any Nigerians. The problem with most of you long posts ids none of it is relevant, your creating made up arguments that we weren't even originally talking about. Stop it.

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...
Actually that wasn't the argument, but your desperation and poor reading comprehension has caused you to change the argument from "Most of the north is H&F" to "Yorubas got a higher population than H&F" these are two different topics. Try to stay with the rest of the class.

(your example of the governor of Ebonyi state doesn't answer the question specifically about what issues you think exist between the two groups)
Which isn't the only thing I said, again, either your reading comprehension is really poor, or you're just someone trying very hard to pretend to be smart in an argument you aren't even winning. In fact, some of your arguments came out of thin air since I never actually made a good number of them.

All you have to do is actually read the full post, I didn't just mention Ebonyi state, I mentioned one big thing that is still an issue until this day, and was an Issue the igbo pointed out years ago as well in regards to the government. Let's see if you can find it this time..
 
Oct 2019
39
Area Ocean
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.
Congo, Mali, Nigeria, Central African Republic etc. Not hard for you to do some research and use that brain of yours, it's 2019, the internet is fast and easy.
 
Aug 2018
564
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.
Your claim is factually wrong and doesn't even make sense.

"Eritrea was claimed by the Ethiopian Empire from 1947 after Eritrea was liberated from Italy's occupation since 1890 (both countries were part of Italian East Africa during World War II). Ethiopia and some of the predominantly Christian part of Eritrea advocated for union with Ethiopia, while the predominantly Muslim and other areas of Eritrea wanted a separate Eritrean state. The United Nations General Assembly in an effort to satisfy both sides decided to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia in 1950, and Eritrea became a constituent state of the Federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea in 1952.[34] Eritrea's declining autonomy and growing discontent with Ethiopian rule caused an independence movement led by the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) in 1961, leading Ethiopia to dissolve the federation and annex Eritrea the next year. [...]

Eritrea was made a British Protectorate from the end of World War II until 1951. However, there was debate as to what should happen with Eritrea after the British left. The British proposed that Eritrea be divided along religious lines with the Christians to Ethiopia and the Muslims to Sudan. This, however, caused great controversy. Then, in 1952, the UN decided to federate Eritrea to Ethiopia, hoping to reconcile Ethiopian claims of sovereignty and Eritrean aspirations for independence. About nine years later, Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie dissolved the federation and annexed Eritrea, triggering a thirty-year armed struggle in Eritrea.[37]"

Eritrean War of Independence - Wikipedia

"The Federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea or Ethiopian–Eritrean Federation[3] was a federation of the Ethiopian Empire and Eritrea. It was created by the approval of the Federal Act in Ethiopia and the Eritrean Constitution on 15 September 1952.

Prior to the annexation of Eritrea, the Chief Justice of Eritrea was removed and the official Eritrean languages were eliminated in favor of Ethiopia's national language Amharic.[4] During the Federation, the encroachment of the Ethiopian Crown was felt on the Chief Executive of Eritrea. This was in direct contravention of the UN Resolution 390-A(V) which had established the Federation.[5]"

Federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea - Wikipedia

To summarise:

1. Some Eritreans wanted an independent state, others wanted to be part of Ethiopia. This division largely followed religious lines.
2. Ethiopia claimed the right to rule Eritrea.
3. The UN tried to create a compromise between both sides by creating a federation between Eritrea and Ethiopia.
4. Ethiopia then dissolved the federation and took over Eritrea.
5. This brought about the Eritrean war of Independence.

So it was conflict between Ethiopians and Eritreans over who should control what which led to war. They could have agreed to peacefully establish separate states, but they didn't agree so they ended up fighting.

It is your pathological and completely illogical desire to blame everything on Europeans which stops you from understanding simple things like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kandal
Aug 2018
564
london
Congo, Mali, Nigeria, Central African Republic etc. Not hard for you to do some research and use that brain of yours, it's 2019, the internet is fast and easy.
No those are just names of countries. In none of those countries did Africans agree to redraw their borders then get forced by 'world orgs', European or UN troops to keep their current borders.
 
Oct 2019
39
Area Ocean
No those are just names of countries. In none of those countries did Africans agree to redraw their borders then get forced by 'world orgs', European or UN troops to keep their current borders.
You're literally denying facts you don';t know about then saying they didn't happen. Those aren't names of countries, there were various agreements during the transition from independence that were stopped.

An easy example is the war in Mali currently going on right now where there was actually talk with Northern groups about possibly negotiating what they could obtain, who was assassinated due to the french for a more beneficial government which now has the franc currently trying to conquer the land in the north FOR the new Bamako Government.

This has actually been going on for awhile, it's just now getting to the point where France isn't able to suppress these movements anymore these recent years. At least not efficiently.

The minutes of research you could have done instead of reactionary posting and being confrontational.
 
Oct 2019
39
Area Ocean
Your claim is factually wrong and doesn't even make sense.

"Eritrea was claimed by the Ethiopian Empire from 1947 after Eritrea was liberated from Italy's occupation since 1890 (both countries were part of Italian East Africa during World War II). Ethiopia and some of the predominantly Christian part of Eritrea advocated for union with Ethiopia, while the predominantly Muslim and other areas of Eritrea wanted a separate Eritrean state. The United Nations General Assembly in an effort to satisfy both sides decided to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia in 1950, and Eritrea became a constituent state of the Federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea in 1952.[34] Eritrea's declining autonomy and growing discontent with Ethiopian rule caused an independence movement led by the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) in 1961, leading Ethiopia to dissolve the federation and annex Eritrea the next year. [...]

Eritrea was made a British Protectorate from the end of World War II until 1951. However, there was debate as to what should happen with Eritrea after the British left. The British proposed that Eritrea be divided along religious lines with the Christians to Ethiopia and the Muslims to Sudan. This, however, caused great controversy. Then, in 1952, the UN decided to federate Eritrea to Ethiopia, hoping to reconcile Ethiopian claims of sovereignty and Eritrean aspirations for independence. About nine years later, Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie dissolved the federation and annexed Eritrea, triggering a thirty-year armed struggle in Eritrea.[37]"

Eritrean War of Independence - Wikipedia

"The Federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea or Ethiopian–Eritrean Federation[3] was a federation of the Ethiopian Empire and Eritrea. It was created by the approval of the Federal Act in Ethiopia and the Eritrean Constitution on 15 September 1952.

Prior to the annexation of Eritrea, the Chief Justice of Eritrea was removed and the official Eritrean languages were eliminated in favor of Ethiopia's national language Amharic.[4] During the Federation, the encroachment of the Ethiopian Crown was felt on the Chief Executive of Eritrea. This was in direct contravention of the UN Resolution 390-A(V) which had established the Federation.[5]"

Federation of Ethiopia and Eritrea - Wikipedia

To summarise:

1. Some Eritreans wanted an independent state, others wanted to be part of Ethiopia. This division largely followed religious lines.
2. Ethiopia claimed the right to rule Eritrea.
3. The UN tried to create a compromise between both sides by creating a federation between Eritrea and Ethiopia.
4. Ethiopia then dissolved the federation and took over Eritrea.
5. This brought about the Eritrean war of Independence.

So it was conflict between Ethiopians and Eritreans over who should control what which led to war. They could have agreed to peacefully establish separate states, but they didn't agree so they ended up fighting.

It is your pathological and completely illogical desire to blame everything on Europeans which stops you from understanding simple things like this.
This is moronic.

You said I am wrong yet post a quote directly proving I was right that Eriteria was given to Ethiopia after WWII, the UN basically decided to give them Eriteria. Also the majority of eriterians wanted to leave, which is why Haliee Selassie handled the situation like a dictator which just made the relation ships worse, then the Derg came.

You should do research instead of over relying on Wikipedia in a history forum, all this is easy to find.

Also keep in mind you aren't addressing the other countries I mentioned, you're using a free country that was never colonized, and Eriteria, who was colonized, not only were you wrong about this, but you're also a pretty bad liar and deceiver.

I'm still waiting for you to prove anything I said wrong instead of running with your tail between your legs trying to desperately change topics.

Every single colony that had major ethnic group clashes are due to borders, Ethiopia is not a colony that has borders drawn around incompatible ethinic groups (you were wrong about it either way) but Nigeria, the Congo, and Central African Republic, among others were.

Almost All of them had movements to redraw or secede from the government, and all were blocked from doing so.

Yes I can blame Europeans for drawing bad borders they mostly didn't do for ANY OTHER COLONY OUTSIDE OF AFRICA.

You're trying to oversimplify the situations, there's a forum for you to go to, it's called stormfront.org, were you can spew all your illogical ramblings and laziness, because lets face it, you don't actually do research you start with an anti-african stance in most of the threads you are in, posting history is public.

Ever since this discussion you've been avoiding addressing my point and trying to run to Ethiopia which shows you actually don't have a response and instead are trying to use a very complex situation to prove a point, but the situation in Ethiopia isn't related to the situations in the Congo etc. This is you basically just trying to be dishonest, and again, you were wrong about that as well.

Show me the Eriteria-like situation in COngo, nigeria, CAR, etc. You can't you're avoiding the subject and trying to bring in something that's completely dissimilar and still screwed up. Congratulations.

it's clear you don't intent to have a rational discussion, mostly because you don't seem like your capable of being rational and using basic critical thinking skills instead of immediately siding with the laziness and easiest stance to take that requires bare minimum effort and no research.

Good day.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,627
Benin City, Nigeria
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.
I'm busier now, so I'll try and keep these posts more simple than my past posts, although I will go into more detail later if time allows. I also ask that we bring the tone of the discussion back to one of civility. If some of the wording in my past posts offended you, that wasn't my intention, I just disagree strongly over certain things and I do think there are some things you are missing, but it would be better if this interaction were more of a discussion rather than a hostile argument.

1. The "vast majority" claim is what I disagree with, hence my disagreement with the implied designation of that area indicated on the map as mostly being some Hausa-Fulani area. You say I"m having trouble "reading a simple map", but why don't you see that I disagree with the implied claim of the map on a factual basis? If the map is read simply it really does suggest that the region is all one Hausa-Fulani area, which is wrong. The Hausa/Fulani have a slim majority, not a vast majority in the non-southern (northern + central) part of Nigeria. I never said there weren't some Hausa/Fulani in the central regions (although even some of those are more recent arrivals, which is part of what the conflicts in Jos and some other areas are caused by).

2. Why do you want to put groups, some of which the Hausa/Fulanis have been attacking before Nigeria was created, and some of whose land the Fulani have launched genocidal invasions of after Nigeria was created and even up to the present day, under the suzerainty of Hausas and Fulanis (under the pretext of "majority rule in a democratic society")? The Hausas and Fulanis have a slim majority of the population and therefore the whole upper region of Nigeria should be made one country centered around their group? Because the British colonists made up some nonsense concept of "Northern Nigeria"? Why not just create one or two additional countries to keep some groups (such as Middle Belt Christians) away from the Hausa and Fulani to start with and avoid any serious potential future conflicts?

3. What one would be advocating here as far as the north - the creation of a country based on a region like that shown in the map - seems to contradict what you are arguing for (and that is what I was heading to with my later criticism of the map, but I first had to explain that the apparent implications of the map are inaccurate about what Hausa-Fulani territory is and was (which is why I mentioned Moses Ochonu's book where he goes into detail about this in regard to the Sokoto Caliphate), and even about population since a huge chunk of such a region would not be Hausa or Fulani.

That wouldn't be stability but a lighting rod for conflict. It is only when multiple armed separatist groups spring up in such a country to fight against imposed Hausa-Fulani hegemony that the folly of such an arrangement might become apparent to some people, but I can already see it beforehand because I already know - and I thought you had at least some knowledge of this - that there have been decades of serious and often violent conflict there between Hausa/Fulani on one hand and non-Hausa/non-Fulani groups on the other hand.

It would amount to creating a country which grants that unified group (Hausas and Fulanis) hegemony over tens of millions of people that have historically either had little to nothing to do with them or have only been enemies to them in the distant past (that sounds eerily similar to Nigeria), and creating a state whose hegemony over such people far exceeds any influence of hegemony that the Sokoto Caliphate ever had among those groups, at a time when some members of that group (Hausas and Fulanis) are openly coveting the land of some of those non-Hausa, non-Fulani peoples, and when some nomadic Fulanis are launching multiple genocidal invasions of their areas. These Fulani nomads are bombing villages, slaughtering children and the elderly with everything from AK-47s to machetes, and generally do not respect other people's land rights, and you feel it is sensible to hand over hegemony to their group (under the pretext of "democratic majority" because of the Hausa-Fulani "plurality") over lands that some of their people have been terrorizing?

If one thinks that there is excessive tension/animosity between the Yoruba and Igbo, and that members of the two groups often don't get along (well many actually do outside of politics), how could one justify granting Hausas and Fulanis hegemony over Middle Belt/Central Nigerians when there are decades of much more direct and even violent conflict between those groups?
 
Last edited:

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,627
Benin City, Nigeria
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.
You say "if there would be a split today". My only comment on that was about most Northern Nigerians and their leadership being opposed to a split today. If you don't disagree then there's not any dispute about that.

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.
Nigeria hasn't had 3 regions since the 1960s, I honestly don't know what you mean by this as far as "running all 3 of those zones as the main power of government". You can elaborate on what you mean by that.

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 didn't fail to comprehend the original point. I commented on the classifications/labeling, some of which I considered inaccurate, and I disagreed with the idea that it must be only 3. Your insistence on 3 is what I disagreed with.

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.
I literally wrote "most". Not "all".

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.
Actually the issue of whether they want to split is relevant to whether the implementation of the original concept is possible or currently plausible. If those concerns of possible risks (in the view of Northern leadership) that I mentioned are not allayed or removed, what is the point of bringing up a concept that can't be implemented except by force/violence/war? Everyone knows the British colonists created the borders and most people who have an ounce of honesty or discernment know that the borders are stupid. Maybe to some people this is new information (although I'm not sure how) and that's who you were trying to reach, but I didn't initially see what "conversation" there was to really have about something so well known and largely self-evident so I commented on some other things about the opening post.


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.



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.
I think it is relevant that their leadership is what is standing in the way of implementing the (already very well known) concept that you mentioned in the opening post. You feel that it "isn't relevant". Fine, let's just disagree.

By them not being "pan-African" I was highlighting that they don't give a damn about the fact that "their issues affect the other regions" or that "the other two zones would benefit by..." or "the damage and the bleeding money" or what benefit their region has to Nigeria and so on. So they have different concerns and these issues are not something that could motivate them to accede to breaking up Nigeria. I only brought up their mindset because once again, I do think the fact that they are in the way of the actual implementation of the concept of changing the borders in the manner suggested in the opening post is relevant to the discussion of the borders.

By the way, if you did not already know this, the Gideon Orkar coup in Nigeria in 1990 was a coup essentially aimed at suspending (and eventually removing) some northern states from being part of Nigeria. The coup was led by a man from the central part of Nigeria.
 
Oct 2019
15
Malabo Accra Kumasi Port Au Prince Carrefour
The title of the thread isn't exactly wrong.

I do believe of any country, even on the planet, the Congo shouldn't even be one country. it doesn't even make sense. The COUNTRY part of the DRC is literally just Kinshasa and the metropolitan area around it. The rest of the country, which is basically nearly 95% of it, isn't even controlled by the government.

It's a bunch of self-governing rebel groups fighting for secession, Invaders from neighboring countries, and corporations making slaves dig for diamonds and cobalt.

The main export of the DRC outside Kinshasa are refugees fleeing to neighboring countries, causing untold amounts of damage and drainage of resources. Sometimes the refugees start about movements in the countries they RAN TO.

Yet for some reason the surrounding countries are not allowed to fully close their borders unless there's an Ebola threat.

Kinshasa and the are surrounding from Boma to Kitwit contains around a third of the population. I think the rest of the land is up for grabs. The government in Kinshasa hasn't even given many provinces budgets. Things like schools, roads, and basic infrastructure is missing from what I would say count as 2/3rds of the country.
 
Aug 2018
564
london
This is moronic.

You said I am wrong yet post a quote directly proving I was right that Eriteria was given to Ethiopia after WWII, the UN basically decided to give them Eriteria. Also the majority of eriterians wanted to leave, which is why Haliee Selassie handled the situation like a dictator which just made the relation ships worse, then the Derg came.

You should do research instead of over relying on Wikipedia in a history forum, all this is easy to find.

Also keep in mind you aren't addressing the other countries I mentioned, you're using a free country that was never colonized, and Eriteria, who was colonized, not only were you wrong about this, but you're also a pretty bad liar and deceiver.

I'm still waiting for you to prove anything I said wrong instead of running with your tail between your legs trying to desperately change topics.

Every single colony that had major ethnic group clashes are due to borders, Ethiopia is not a colony that has borders drawn around incompatible ethinic groups (you were wrong about it either way) but Nigeria, the Congo, and Central African Republic, among others were.

Almost All of them had movements to redraw or secede from the government, and all were blocked from doing so.

Yes I can blame Europeans for drawing bad borders they mostly didn't do for ANY OTHER COLONY OUTSIDE OF AFRICA.

You're trying to oversimplify the situations, there's a forum for you to go to, it's called stormfront.org, were you can spew all your illogical ramblings and laziness, because lets face it, you don't actually do research you start with an anti-african stance in most of the threads you are in, posting history is public.

Ever since this discussion you've been avoiding addressing my point and trying to run to Ethiopia which shows you actually don't have a response and instead are trying to use a very complex situation to prove a point, but the situation in Ethiopia isn't related to the situations in the Congo etc. This is you basically just trying to be dishonest, and again, you were wrong about that as well.

Show me the Eriteria-like situation in COngo, nigeria, CAR, etc. You can't you're avoiding the subject and trying to bring in something that's completely dissimilar and still screwed up. Congratulations.

it's clear you don't intent to have a rational discussion, mostly because you don't seem like your capable of being rational and using basic critical thinking skills instead of immediately siding with the laziness and easiest stance to take that requires bare minimum effort and no research.

Good day.
The problem we keep running into is that everything you write is a mush of totally confused and illogical nonsense. Like I said you seem to be randomly cutting and pasting ideas that you don't understand. So you think you're making some sort of substantive point but nothing you write actually connects up in any sort of logical or coherent way.