Niger: The Stable Sahelian State, For Now
- Thread starter theworldismine13
- Start date
Marvel
Psalm 149:5-9
So basically Nigeria is widely considered a farce and creation of colonialism to yall?
It is only considered a farce to those who are enlightened. It is very easy to destroy the case for Nigeria. I will challenge ANYBODY that says that Nigeria was created by the people that call themselves Nigerians. The only thing that binds the different groups within Nigeria is that they were colonized by the British and that they now live in a nation together...a nation that they never created. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a fake nationalism that you see among Nigerians because they do not know any better. Whole tribes are split among different countries in Africa because of the scramble for Africa. Yorubas can be found in Nigeria, Benin, and as far as Togo. Hausas and Kunari are in Nigeria, Niger, and Chad. Fulanis are nomads and are all over north and west Africa. They brought Islam to parts of what is now known as Nigeria through Jihad about 200 years ago.
Marvel
Psalm 149:5-9
Last edited:
I gotcha, it makes sense. I remember us having this discussion a while back and I argued for larger regional states in Africa so tribes could be reconnected and move more freely like before. However, I also didn't know the complexities of the issues on that side of the African map. Is this an opinion throughout West Africa's enlightened? Do you think war is inevitable in order to solve the current issues? Is this why Fela was beefin with the government so much? My bad for all these questions but anytime I learn some new shyt I gotta know everything I can.
I've been meaning to pick up some Chinua, you made it official now.
superunknown23
Superstar
Poor, politically unstable and landlocked...
Damn
Damn
Captain Crunch
Veteran
Poor, politically unstable and landlocked...
Damn
You have the river.
I wonder if there are any super highways that connect landlocked countries to each other.
superunknown23
Superstar
Sub-Saharan Africa ain't nice like that.
Being landlocked is just awful for any economy... Only Switzerland and Austria doing fine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landlocked_country
Marvel
Psalm 149:5-9
@2Quik4UHoes
I know...a few people were coming at me not understanding the full scope of the situation. It is not an opinion that is found throughout Africa. In some countries like Senegal, they mostly practice Islam so conflicts are less likely and its a small country compared to Nigeria. In Nigeria, you have a lot of tribes, some that are predominantly christian like Igbos, Ijaws, Bini people and many other smaller tribes mostly in the south. In the west, Yoruba who are almost split evenly between Muslim and Christian. Then you have the core north (Hausa, Fulani, Kunari) which is predominantly Muslim and below you them in the middle belt (central Nigeria) which is has a bunch of smaller tribes like Tivi, Berom, etc who are mostly Christian and historically have been used by the Muslim North for their land and during the civil war. Today, these same people who were allies of the core north are now enemies of the core north. So, the Nigerian situation is more complex than a relatively peaceful Ghana.
Remember Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa, the UK did not do this by accident. They wanted one big colony that they can show off to word as showing their ability to "civilize" blacks. A people who were already civilized in their own respective kingdoms before cacs came and messed things up. Even they knew that the people were too different to treat the same politically that Nigeria used to be Southern and Northern Nigeria, two separate colonies. The reason it was initially separate was because of the Emirs of the north and the Sokoto Caliphate's influence over the northern people. They knew that they needed to be treated differently to ensure the colony's stability. In the 1914, Frederick Lugard amalgamated Northern and Southern Nigeria forming what is now known as Nigeria. This was completely done to serve the corporate purposes of the Royal Niger Company.
Fela's beef with the government had to do with corruption which was very true. The only thing with Fela's thinking is that he did not understand that corruption is what allows Nigeria to be Nigeria. He like many Nigerians believed in the falsehood that is Nigeria. The British have brainwashed many very well.You cannot have faith in something that is fundamentally flawed of "One Nigeria." The British have told the northern elite that they are Born to Rule Nigeria. The Muslim north's biggest ally is not only the middle east but the British who have held economic interest in Nigeria since they created it. The Muslim north maintains the status quo of UK and western interests. The reason Biafra lost the war was because they lacked the international support to sustain the breakaway from Nigeria. Early in the war Biafra was winning battles with not much weapons. This concerned the UK as they were expecting the war to be easy work for Nigeria due to number and military advantage so they stepped and provided additional support. Nigeria during this time also contacted the USSR to provide them with additional weapons, tanks and MIG fighter jets to which they hired the Egyptian Air Force to bomb Biafra daily. So, the UK and the Soviet Union, yes the USSR supported Nigeria militarily and took pressure off them diplomatically among the international community under the news of attempted genocide. Cameroon was influenced into blockading Biafra and that was when the mass starvation occurred. The people from the land didn't matter to Nigeria. The war had nothing to do with keeping Nigeria one but keeping the resources under Biafran land in control. That lie was fed throughout the British media. The war for Biafra was simply a war of survival. This is the ONLY conflict during the Cold War in which a western power and the USSR were on the same side. So, if war occurs again, I am sure that things will be very different.
War doesn't need to happen because it is really simple to solve. Just let Biafrans go from the yoke of bondage so that they can handle their own affairs without continuing to act like everything is cool in a country that brings nothing but death and disappointment. The UN says that a group has the right to self-determination but it appears that that right does not exist for Africans. It is not different than the breakup of Yugoslavia. The truth is that the reason non-Biafrans and the western powers, especially the UK do not want Biafra to go is because of the natural resources that come from Biafran land. Remember various countries and multinational companies have signed oil production deals with the Nigerian government under NNPC. If Nigeria breaks up, these deals will be nullified and need to be renegotiated if these companies want to continue to do business there. The fear is that they lose out on billions of dollars in oil revenue, so keeping Nigeria together regardless of the peoples wishes and daily loss of life is preferable .Another fear is that Biafrans will decide to nationalize their resources and bring their people back from other countries to extract their oil, coal, natural gas on their own without the help of the white and the now rising Asian man...something that Biafra is very capable of doing. That is the white man's nightmare...an independent black state that doesn't need their aide or help.
Last edited:
Marvel
Psalm 149:5-9
I heard it was rumor. I have yet to see the document, but Nigeria will be 100 years old next year. A northern and southern breakup is not enough to fix the issues that are in that country. The divisions are that deep.
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
Props to all for the info in this thread, I don't know nearly enough about Nigeria and Niger.
@Marvel @Don Drogo @2Quik4UHoes do you guys know if there are any works (books, essays, articles...) about how Africa would look like if boundaries were more in line with the actual tribes/ethic groups on the ground? Not that I think it will ever happen, just out of curiosity.
@Marvel @Don Drogo @2Quik4UHoes do you guys know if there are any works (books, essays, articles...) about how Africa would look like if boundaries were more in line with the actual tribes/ethic groups on the ground? Not that I think it will ever happen, just out of curiosity.
Marvel
Psalm 149:5-9
Good question. I also want to point out that people have to also realize is that certain tribes were under the same kingdom together and shared cultures and customs. So tribes are not always the problem, but different cultures. Since the formation of Nigeria it has become harder for those groups to maintain their identity within their former kingdoms as a mindset. People are becoming increasingly fragmented. For example, the Benin empire which in the mid-western region has numerous tribes, but since British influence they have had some infighting due to the instability that Nigeria creates.
These regions were created by the British to ensure northern Hausa/Fulani dominance by giving them an even larger territory....more below.
1960-1963
The western region was mostly Yoruba and Bini people up until 1963 when the Bini people decided to breakaway and form the mid-western region. The Eastern region is Biafra which is mostly Igbo and Ijaw. They share some cultural ties and most Ijaws speak Igbo due to centuries of trading with each other, intermarriage is also common in areas where they border each other. Since the war, the Ijaw have been fighting with the government on and off due to oil pollution that has destroyed their fishing communities and land thus strengthening their identity. The Northern region is a blur. It has a lot of different tribes and is split among Christian and Muslim. The bottom half of the northern region is the middle belt (Tivi, Berom, Igala, etc.) are mostly Christian which had a political alliance with the upper half (Hausa, Fulani, Kunari, etc) which is mostly Muslim until recently due to serious clashes and rioting that has occurred since 1999. This northern alliance until recently ensured the northern dominance.
So in essence, the most accurate map you will see for the split of Nigeria is the 1963-1967 map leading up to the civil war except that the northern region would be split in half as the middle belt now hates the upper north with the force of a thousand suns. Even though the middle belt fought and died on the behalf upper north during the civil war. The middle belt has since regretted being involved in the war against Biafra which they consider to be their biggest mistake.
Proposed countries
Northern region
- upper half - Arewa (Hausa, Fulani, Kunari, etc)
- lower half - ??? (Tivi, Berom, Igala, etc.)
Western region
- Oduduwa (Yoruba and their brethren Egba, Awori, etc)
Mid-western region
- Benin Republic (Edo people)
Eastern Region
-Biafra (Igbo, Efik, Annanf, Ibibio, and Ijaw)
Alternatives
- western and mid-western region may merge although its unlikely as there is history of beefs before colonialism although they share some similarities.
- eastern region may splinter off away from Ijaw areas since the rise of militancy the last few years among the Ijaws against the government. This has helped them create an independent identity from the rest of Biafra but it is out of necessity for now. Ijaws and Igbos have no beefs with each other as both support each others struggles.
I am not too familiar with other groups struggles outside of Nigeria. I know that a county like DR Congo have issues. I am sure that a break up of Nigeria will cause other countries in Africa to reconsider their boundaries. It is no different than the liberation movements in Europe during the enlightenment period. It will spread like wildfire. The US Africom I am sure was formed to take advantage of an unstable Africa in the event of wars and conflicts break out. There is no doubt that the West will be there to try and exploit the people again which is my biggest fear in the Biafran struggle.