people are stupid in realizing the facts before us.


1. Ancient africans didn't draw maps

2. Many areas claimed and inhabited by one tribe are claimed and inhabited by another


The result of Balkinzation will be 250 wars for land and resources where in the end the powerful few will conquer over the weak many and thus leave us in the same situation we are in today only in the aftermath of a holocaust.

Even look at Biafra. Most of Biafra was igboic land but not igbo land. If biafra happens what moral right does biafra have in stopping the rest of the tribes from establishing their own countries unless the igbo, by force, repress the others and force them to accept igbo hegemony.


also. Look at the single ethnicity states in africa.


Somalia.

how has building a country based on a single ethnicity, in that situation, helped Somalia? Just because there isn't non somalis does that mean they have had years of peace and prosperity.

Ethiopia is another example. The Ethiopians are the hegemonic tribe of an empire that includes several smaller tribes, like Biafra would be, and nearly all of them are fighting armed seperation wars because they dont want to be under ethiopian hegemony when they're not ethiopian.



Nigeria on the other had is up for grabs cause no tribe has TOTAL dominance. The hausa in politics but that's cause they dominate the army and army=government in nigeria, even today. But when it comes to economics they don't control the country, when it comes to culture they dont control the country, simple government heads that nobody in the country listens to anyways.


I can say the Yoruba and Igbo are also the dominate cause they are richer and their standard of living is higher much like the whites of south africa.







anyways, balkanization would be a holocaust. And if you look at europe for an example, all the countries in europe/west all conglomeration of several independent tribes.

England
Germany
France
Switzerland
Italy
Russia
US

South Korea and Japan are the only successful single ethnicity countries i can think of.

Interesting piece!

Though still starching my head on why France isn't a single-ethnicity country - the Gauls make up France and part of Belgium.

Any way, still a cool piece. Thanks.

there were Gauls, Celts, Visigoths, Goths, and various germanic peoples. Its just the Gauls killed most of them and forced them to submit, much like the situation in Ethiopia and also further proving a country like Biafra would only work if Igbos are willing to forcefully supress the numerous other tribes that country would contain as well and igbos that don't claim they're igbo (which there's a lot of). this would spark the bloodbath im speaking of.

same with a Yoruba nation.

European nations are mixes of tribes like african ones, the only reason they don't have turbulence is 1. they're over 1000 years old, and 2. One group in those countries killed the rest of the groups until they were in able to even speak their native tongue.

England was comparable to the igbo cause every city you'd go to there was a different dialect of english, till one group, anglo-saxon, killed and subdued the others.


africans can go 2 routes. Diplomatically building multi ethnic nations and endure long painful assimilation or a blood bath for dominance that would be caused by balkanization.

Stop spreading lies you idiot!

How many minorities did Igbos kill in Biafra? Who is killing those minorities today?
The most peaceful and progressive African country of Botswana is a uni-national state (tswana). You conveniently forgot that just to feed your obsession with Biafra. Is Japan and South korea not stable and peaceful? Even all the nations you mentioned are dominated by single progressive nations.
China is 90% Han too. Igbos will NEVER FORCE ANYONE TO JOIN BIAFRA.

Onlytruth:

Stop spreading lies you idiot!

How many minorities did Igbos kill in Biafra? Who is killing those minorities today?
The most peaceful and progressive African country of Botswana is a uni-national state (tswana). You conveniently forgot that just to feed your obsession with Biafra. Is Japan and South korea not stable and peaceful? Even all the nations you mentioned are dominated by single progressive nations.
China is 90% Han too. So leave Igbos and Biafra alone!

Actually you're wrong on Britain. Anglos and Saxons are two distinct tribes. Anglos are the original English people who dominate in Wales, and South England. The Saxonites were northern European invaders. The Scots and Irish also have much Celtic (nordic Euro) mixtures in them.

Language is a bigger barrier to cultural homogeneity than all other factors, bar perhaps skin colour.

Nigeria cannot be united unless we can all understand each other. With the right education all Nigerians should speak our newly adoped English. One of the major house indifferences is their language. The fuckers don’t seem to want to learn English.

Stop spreading lies you idiot!

How many minorities did Igbos kill in Biafra? Who is killing those minorities today?
The most peaceful and progressive African country of Botswana is a uni-national state (tswana). You conveniently forgot that just to feed your obsession with Biafra. Is Japan and South korea not stable and peaceful? Even all the nations you mentioned are dominated by single progressive nations.
China is 90% Han too. Igbos will NEVER FORCE ANYONE TO JOIN BIAFRA.

how about you calm down and stop acting like a victim of rape because of the internet.

biafra was never actualized. but there was tribes that were in biafra and fighting against the idea, so what would happen to them afterwards? they would say oops and let it go?

Japan is peaceful and Stable, but it took centuries of constant bloodshed to get there, and the massacre of the native Ainu ppl of the island (look it up) Korea also took years of conflict to get were its at, and the tension and potential for large scale cultural conflict with N.korea is still there.

Han Chinese were one of many ppl in the area once upon a time and didn't reach there dominance without killing off their neighbors and forcing them to submit, and they're still doing it in Tibet and western China today as i type this.

Cultural singularity doesn't mean development. Development means development.

strangleyo:

Actually you're wrong on Britain. Anglos and Saxons are two distinct tribes. Anglos are the original English people who dominate in Wales, and South England. The Saxonites were northern European invaders. The Scots and Irish also have much Celtic (nordic Euro) mixtures in them.

Language is a bigger barrier to cultural homogeneity than all other factors, bar perhaps skin colour.

Nigeria cannot be united unless we can all understand each other. With the right education all Nigerians should speak our newly adoped English.  One of the major house indifferences is their language. The fuckers don’t seem to want to learn English.

Are they all white? Yes!
Are they all Christians? Yes!
Do they speak the same language or a derivative of the same language? Yes!
Even the entire western Europe has about three main root tribes (if you like), and share root language, which is why "rendezvous"  and "deja vous" are French words adapted into the English dictionary. The way an English person speaks French is different from the way an African (even from French speaking countries) speak it. The English person will speak a more "accentless" French than an African. These are one people! Never mind the small language variations.
Ndigbo share cultural and some linguistic ties with all Eastern tribes. Igbo and minorities are also Christians and Animists. Most importantly, there has never been wars between Igbos and their Eastern neighbors. That is a fact! So stop spreading lies!

If you are saying that Nigeria is planning to wipe out the Niger delta like they tried to do to Igbos in Biafra, you may have a point. Afterall there are already military personnel on the ground in Niger delta. Those who are desperate for oil money will stop at nothing. Just leave Igbos out of it!

Are they all white? Yes! (Celts weren't considered white because they were native to europe with unknown origins and the germanic tribes came the indus valley, the Germanic were white and only until the US passed legislation recognizing the Irish as white in the 1800s in order to maintain their numeric superiority over the blacks the Celts weren't considered White, a term reserved for germanic tribes)
Are they all Christians? Yes! (not originally, they were forced into becoming christian by Roman imperialism. prior to that they had several tribal Oden religions and variations)
Do they speak the same language or a derivative of the same language? Yes! (no)
Even the entire western Europe has about three main root tribes (if you like), and share root language, which is why "rendezvous" and "deja vous" are French words adapted into the English dictionary. The way an English person speaks French is different from the way an African (even from French speaking countries) speak it. The English person will speak a more "accentless" French than an African. These are one people! Never mind the small language variations. (this comment has no base and its irrelevant in the fact it makes no sense)
Ndigbo share cultural and some linguistic ties with all Eastern tribes. Igbo and minorities are also Christians and Animists. Most importantly, there has never been wars between Igbos and their Eastern neighbors. That is a fact! So stop spreading lies! (that's a lie. The Igbo and Ibibio fought several slave trade related wars and all eastern tribes constantly raided each other for slaves.)

i can provide links proving each point, but before that i advise you calm down lol. It's the internet, calm the Bleep down.

Ikengawo:


The Igbo and Ibibio fought several slave trade related wars and all eastern tribes constantly raided each other for slaves.)

So how does that translate to tribal wars? I'm sure you will call drugs wars in Columbia and in Northern Mexico tribal wars too! You were talking about ethnic wars (or ethnic cleansing wars). What you are trying to do amounts to[b] sophistry[/b]. No offense!

yeah. it was one tribe versus another. in a war. that would be considered a[i] tribal war[/i]

I think I have provided enough evidence to counter your sophistry. So stop spreading lies against Biafra and Igbos, else you will always have the likes of me to call you to order. I'm sure you will equate headache with terminal cancer. That you say so does not make it true. The type of war you talk about NEVER HAPPENED between the Igbo and their neighbors. It happened in the North during the Jihads. It happened in the west between the Yoruba and the Bini for instance leading to the "Obaship". Igbo never had that type of tribal structure to wage such wars and we won't do that today against our neighbors. Biafra no be by force!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aro-Ibibio_Wars

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Aro-Ibibio_Wars

my friend you're an idiot. calm down.

Links to lies!

[size=16pt]IDIOTIC POSTER[/size]

u think^^^??

It has been proven without doubt that ethnic diversity causes under-development, poverty and strife. You can find an example academic paper here http://www.econ.upf.edu/~reynal/jde_marta_jose.pdf

The fall of the Aro Confederacy
During the last quarter of the 19th century, great tension arose between the Europeans and Aros. Mainly BritainUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name and the state form of the United Kingdom from 1 January 1801 until 12 April 1927,
was in this conflict since neighbouring GermanGermany
Germany , officially the Federal Republic of Germany , is a country in Central Europe. It is bordered to the north by the North Sea, Denmark, and the Baltic Sea; to the east by Poland and the Czech Republic; to the south by Austria and Switzerland; and to the west by France, Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands,
and SpanishSpain
Spain or the Kingdom of Spain , is a country located in Southern Europe on the Iberian Peninsula.The Spanish constitution does not establish any official denomination of the country, even though Espa?a , Estado espa?ol and Naci?n espa?ola are used interchangeably,
colonies had little struggle with Aro presence or resistance. The British had planned on dividing and capturing Aro kingdoms and settlements throughout the Southern Nigerian colony. Fighting occurred as many British supporting towns were attacked. By 1901, the tensions were tensed. The Aro invasion of Obegu started the Anglo-Aro warAnglo-Aro War
Cause of the war The Aro Confederacy, whose powers extended across Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, and Cameroon, was crumbling in the late 19th century due to the European colonists,
. Benefits from the war were the enemies of the Aro, especially slaves and servants who were mainly Ibibios and Non-Aro Igbos. Also the Christians, who became saved, since they were either the poorest or were outcasts. And of course some rivals saw a chance for freedom of Aro terrorism like the Ibibio neighbours and rival Igbo clans.

@ikengawo
Can you explain the bolded?

that's not true.

if the European union becomes a single nation, it will be the richest in the world, and yet VERY diverse.

if this was true then explain Somalia and Japan.

Singularity in ethnicity doesn't determine development, its how its handled.

@ikengawo
Can you explain the bolded?

what's the question? that bolded segment doesn't make much sense. shouldn't be a reason to denounce the entire historical event though.
i think it's trying to say those that benefitted to most are those particular groups but idk.

Ikengawo:

what's the question? that bolded segment doesn't make much sense. shouldn't be a reason to denounce the entire historical event though.
i think it's trying to say those that benefitted to most are those particular groups but idk.

You said that the igbo would collectively try to wipe out the minorities in the east and you gave the link as an eg but from the bolded what i get is that some igbo clans where actually against the Aros which quashes the notion that the igbo would collectively quash or engage in awar with any of the minorities

Ikengawo:

that's not true.

if the European union becomes a single nation, it will be the richest in the world, and yet VERY diverse.

if this was true then explain Somalia and Japan.

Singularity in ethnicity doesn't determine development, its how its handled.

One thing, European Union is not even a tenth as diverse as Nigeria.
Can you point out any developed country that has several diverse indegenious ethnicities?

it doesn't have to be as diverse are nigeria, the example is still there and a wealthy european union disproves the theory that multiethnicity makes a country poor, which was why i used the example.

but for a developed country with an much diversity? Russia and India if you count it as developed yet.

a few ppl confused my point and have began thinking im saying igbos are going to kill everyone

[size=17pt][/size] If nigeria is balkanized ALL larger ethnic groups would have to engage in bloody wars against their smaller neigbors and eachother. Point of thread. [size=8pt][/size]


Igbos are not more murderous or prone to killing their nieghbors, i only used them as an example

I guess the originator of this thread must have forgotten the most recent case of ethnic diversity in Europe and the the problems it caused ie Yugoslavia.

Multiethnic countries create big problems. Its not like they can not be managed but its problematic. Even the whole European Union is not as diverse as Nigeria.


One other thing of note. Language is the biggest division known to mankind. Its bigger than skin color or anyother thing. Nowhere is this more amplified than in subsaharan Africa. Unlike Europeans who put skin color first, we Africans put language and subsequently culture ahead of everyother parameter in indicating commonality among ourselves.

A white looking girl named Oluchi regardless of her skin tone, eye color or hair color would consider her self as sharing more in common with an Ijeoma who has an extremely dark skin than a Bunmi or Ayesha who might have the same skin tone as Oluchi.
I doubt a Chioma would consider a Kudirat born and raised in the North or a Funmi in the west as her sisters ahead of an Ngozi born and raised in the east if they all have very dark skin color and Ngozi was a very yellow girl with very light eyes.

In majority white countries like the USA for example a White guy born in the USA might see more commonality with a visiting European who does not even speak his Language as opposed to a Black American who was born in the same country as speaks English like him and might even attended the same high school with him!!!!!!!!!!

Pls people while delibrating this issue
1.Let us not forget how we see commonality among ourselves.

2.The idea of seeing commonality as primarilly based on skin color irrespective of massive differences in Language and culture is, in my personal opinion, a foreign idea to us Africans.

The Europeans created artficial states all over Africa becoz they saw us and expected us to see ourselves primarilly as just "Blacks'. The reality on the ground though is that Emeka will not see Mohammed or Abdullahi and go and imagine all of a sudden that there is little difference between them and that he is one of his "black brotha". Neither will Adekunle see Yusuf who speaks a diff language and practices a diffrent culture and imagine that all those dont matter. What matters is that he is a a "black brotha"

my 2 cents

all our reason is actually pointing that we can never be better if we continuing accepting to be one nation, pleas let us tell ourself truth why we wants to be in one country. because the ways i live my life and want i want in live and way i take my family and what i want to achieve is quite deference from what Yoruba/Hausa want in life thou we all want better life but the way we life is different, we cant change that.

Balkanization would be bloodbath. Forced contraption will be a blood swimming pool!

My article on Nigeria Village Square titled [b]If Naija Scatte[/b]r should be relevant to this discourse.See weblink below.

http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/nafata-bamaguje/if-naija-scatter-part-1.html

@Ikengawo

You are going very far just look at
RWANDA THE HUTU AND TUTSI SPOKE THE SAME LANGUAGE.

The Elite must have their way if they dont there cause Class will crumble so they play dirty and they have collaborators on all sides.

They dont care or give a hut about language. It is just a class struggle they must win. If the Masses are wise they will not answer them.

Read the article below.


The Tutsi, more correctly the Batutsi, are one of three native peoples of the nations of Rwanda and Burundi in central Africa. Large numbers of them were slaughtered in the Rwandan Genocide of 1994.
The exact origin of the Tutsis is not certain. Tutsis were traditionally considered a Hamitic people, however such notions are not generally accepted by the academic community today. Colonial scholars believed that the Tutsi came from East Africa, possibly Sudan or Uganda. Today there is considerable debate about the racial validity of the term Tutsi as distinct from Hutu. Some researchers believe there is next to no genetic difference between the two groups, and that what difference does exist can be explained by social patterns within the Great Lakes region. Most differences between the groups are economic and cultural. Nonetheless, most Rwandans today identify themselves as either Tutsi or Hutu.

The term Tutsi is actually an indeterminate term. In the Kinyarwanda language, a single Tutsi is termed batutsi, and more than one (the plural) is termed watutsi. This is the source of the dance name Watusi.

The Watutsi are actually the most recent arrivals in Rwanda and Burundi. The original inhabitants were the Twa (or Watwa), a pygmy people. The Hutu (Wahutu), a Bantu-derived people, subsequently moved in and dominated the Twa. Later yet, the Tutsi immigrated from the north during the 1400's and dominated both the Hutu and the Twa, establishing kingdoms that they ruled.

An interesting aspect of these three racial groups is comparative height. The Twa are traditionally portrayed as short, the Hutu medium, and the Tutsi tall. Height differences may well be accounted for by differences in nutrition. Physical differences are almost as stratified within the Tutsi group as between the Tutsis and the Hutus. Although some Tutsi are much taller and have sharper noses than most Hutus, most Tutsi are indistinguishable from the average Hutu.

There is no difference between the culture and language of the Tutsi and Hutu. Traditionally the rate of intermarriage has been very high. Relations between the groups were generally peaceful until the 20th century.

These significant similarites lead many to conclude that Tutsi is an expression of class or caste rather than ethnicity. Experts still dispute over whether these similarities between Hutus and Tutsis came from a common ancestry or a high rate of intermarriage.

By the 1800's the Hutus and Tutsis had also evolved into socioeconomic castes. BelgianFor alternate meanings, see Belgium (disambiguation). Belgian redirects here. For the horse breed commonly used as a draft horse, see Belgian. The Kingdom of Belgium ( Dutch: Belgi French: Belgique German: Belgien is a country in Western Europe, bordered colonialistsColonialism is a system in which a state claims sovereignty over territory and people outside its own boundaries, often to facilitate economic domination over their resources, labor, and often markets. The term also refers to a set of beliefs used to legi created the notions of two different races rather than castes. Hutu, Tutsi and Twa all speak the same language.

link

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Tutsi.htm


I have said and I will say it a Again Tribalism is a form of Classism that the Elite use for their Benefit.

i dont disagree with anything you are saying but it's still not relevant to the topic at hand.


all im saying, african's never drew ethnic maps a break up of nigeria would be an outbreak of several wars for land because many tribes claim the same land and some tribes even claim other tribes.

and balkanization would lead to smaller tribes being forcefully absorbed by larger tribes for resources and again land or access to sea.