Judges, you may now throw your questions to the debaters.

Katsumoto:

No one knows how long the wars my opponent refers to would have gone on for. It didn't appear that any of the sides had a material advantage to subdue the other. The Fulani were restricted by the Bornu-Kanem empire. The Fulani and Yoruba had a series of wars with no one landing a decisive blow. The Yoruba themselves were not even united before peace was brokered by the British in 1892; they had been fighting the Kiriji war for 16 years.

If you had gone through my post, you will see I said a spirited effort was made. I never said the Yorubas were able to successfully annex the north nor did I say the same for the north. The point is, they made an effort. The British simply facilitated it, knowingly or unknowingly.

The spirited effort is even evidenced as there are some people of Northern extraction with Yoruba origin. The same goes in the south west for the Hausas

Obinoscopy: [

Fellow Nigerians, the Nigeria's union was right and valid; it is acceptable and desirable. The way Nigeria emerged to become a nation is how several other nations across the world emerged and rose to glory. Countries like the United States of America were as a result of several amalgamations and annexations (Hawaii, Florida, Texas, Alaska, California, and Louisiana). The USA, like Nigeria, is a multi-diverse country. It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations. Despite all these diversities, they are stand unified. The underlying factor responsible for the economic and military strength of the US is their tolerance for diversity. The cause of violence and a feeling of disunity within a country is not due to diverse religious, cultural or tribal or linguistic affiliations, but rather bad leadership. There are countries that are seemingly homogenous yet are afflicted with years of conflict. Take Somalia for instance; there can be no more homogeneous nation on Earth than Somalia. It's a monolingual, mono-religious, and mono-ethnic society. Everybody in Somalia speaks the Somali language. Everybody there is not just a Muslim, but a Sunni Muslim. It is often said that Somalia is not just a nation but a big family. Yet it's an excellent specimen of a failed state. It has been gripped by sanguinary convulsions for years on end.

The birth of Nigeria can not be compared with that of the US. 13 states joined together and declared independence from Britain. It was an agreement and not a forced union. The US acquired the other states by either winning them in war or buying them.

It is incorrect to state that only one ethnic group comprises Somalia. Somalis are the majority but there are other groups such as the Bantus, Bajuni, Benadiri, etc.

my question goes to katsumoto....

what exactly did the british benefit from the amalgamation? i need you to throw some light on that as briefly as possible....

Katsumoto:

The birth of Nigeria can not be compared with that of the US. 13 states joined together and declared independence from Britain. It was an agreement and not a forced union. The US acquired the other states by either winning them in war or buying them.

It is incorrect to state that only one ethnic group comprises Somalia. Somalis are the majority but there are other groups such as the Bantus, Bajuni, Benadiri, etc.

Point of correction its 13 colonies not states. I agree with you that those 13 colonies agreed to unite together. However the natives of Texas, Loiusvinia, California, Alaska, Hawaii, were never consulted neither was a plebiscite or referendum sought from them. You even agreed that they were either bought or won from war. The purchase was done forcefully and the unprovoked war won was fought without consideration for the natives

Obinoscopy: [
Fellow Nigerians, who can we blame for the bribery and corruption we face today, the high rate of armed robbery, kidnappings and terrorism in the country, the unemployment we face presently. Who can we blame for the high inflation rate, the poor infrastructures, the brain drain, etc. the list is endless. Do we blame Lord Lugard for all these? Do we blame amalgamation? Of course the answer is a capital NO. Our leaders are to be blamed for all these. The idea of an incompatible and failed union was a fallacy sold to us by failed leaders to justify their failure. A Local Government chairman who was given resources to provide for his Local Government would embezzle the funds, yet, he would blame the beautiful Nigerian union, the governor of a state who had the mandate and resources to develop the state would siphon the funds, but would turn to the citizens and blame the beautiful Nigeria. So I ask, how has the north or south prevented your state governor/Local Government chairman from using his budget judiciously? How is the issue of ethnicity affecting each state? Why can't the state Government justify their resources? Yet, we would blame the amalgamation. We are just like the typical suicide bomber who would believe all the lies told by his elders and detonate himself to oblivion without asking why the elders did not offer their own children for the suicide mission instead. It is high time we the citizens demanded justice from the governors, chairman, presidents who failed to utilize the funds provided to them for our general purpose rather than join them to accept the fallacy of incompatible Nigeria.

[/url]

But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. Matthew 7:26 The Holy Bible

How can the problems of today not be associated with the shaky foundations Nigeria has. My opponent does not seem to understand how Nigerian politics work. In Nigeria, a man that is rejected at home can be elected by others. That was the case for Obasanjo who lost overwhelmingly in the West but was still elected president. The centralized structure of the country makes it possible for unpopular and corrupt individuals to be selected by godfathers in Abuja. Local government chairmen do not win office because they are popular with those in their constituencies but because of influence of godfathers who expect a big slice of contracts and revenue.

The session is still on questions from judges. The window closes in the next 10 minutes.

Debaters, pls respond to question(s) posted at you as soon as the question is visible.

Katsumoto:

How can the problems of today not be associated with the shaky foundations Nigeria has. My opponent does not seem to understand how Nigerian politics work. In Nigeria, a man that is rejected at home can be elected by others. That was the case for Obasanjo who lost overwhelmingly in the West but was still elected president. The centralized structure of the country makes it possible for unpopular and corrupt individuals to be selected by godfathers in Abuja. Local government chairmen do not win office because they are popular with those in their constituencies but because of influence of godfathers who expect a big slice of contracts and revenue.

My well opponent has now officially left the topic, which is amalgamation and is discussing corruption as the bane of our development as a nation

Who does not know that? We all know that corruption is one major problem we are facing.

If I may ask my opponent, is the Local Governemnt chairman who embezles our money doing it because of amalgamation? And what of the State Governors? I await your response my most revered Katsumoto

coogar: my question goes to katsumoto....

what exactly did the british benefit from the amalgamation? i need you to throw some light on that as briefly as possible....

First, by amalgamating both protectorates, they were able to save on human resources and cost of administration. You have to remember that the British were spread thin with colonies all over the world. Without Amalgamation, they would have required more men, administrators and money for all the colonies.

Second, British companies like UAC were pushing goods to all regions. The infrastructure required to reach all parts was derived from revenue in the South. The British weren't interested in using British tax payers resources for such ventures.

Does any other judge have a question for the debaters?

Obinoscopy:

Point of correction its 13 colonies not states. I agree with you that those 13 colonies agreed to unite together. However the natives of Texas, Loiusvinia, California, Alaska, Hawaii, were never consulted neither was a plebiscite or referendum sought from them. You even agreed that they were either bought or won from war. The purchase was done forcefully and the unprovoked war won was fought without consideration for the natives

Louisiana was purchased from France for $15M

Parts of Florida were won from Spain during war

Texas and New Mexico were won from Mexico

In this and other cases, the US was a stakeholder. Britain which amalgamated Nigeria was not a stakeholder in the region.

question for obinoscopy....

nigeria as a nation today has about 370 tribes in it - given that no country in the west african region has up to that encompassed in one entity, don't you think this is an anomaly given the relatively small land size of nigeria?

All protocols duly observed.

My point is why blame our almost 100 years of amalgamation? Why blame Lugard? Even if it was for his selfish reasons, is he still in Nigeria. Is he still milking us dry? No.

Our leaders are the ones destroy our God given country. When they cling on to central power they shout ONE NIGERIA. When they lose out they they shout NIGERIA WAS FORCED UPON US!

They are just hypocrites and nothing more. We need to resist being deceived by these people. They just want means to hang on to power either centrally or regionally. As a politician rightly put it, "its a do or die affair"

Viewers/audience may now throw questions to the debaters.

Pls specify who the question is directed at.

Only 2 questions will be entertained based on 'fastest hand' principle.

A debater can respond to the question immediately the question is visible.

Obinoscopy:
If I asked you this question: “Are you a mistake?” What would be your response? Of course you will answer – albeit aggressively – that you are not a mistake. You will not even ask for time to go and research to give me the right answer, you will not tell me to hold on as you call your parents or consult your elders. No, you will not! You will throw the answer right back at my face with all the aggressiveness you can muster: “I am not a mistake!” You will say this because you know there is a purpose to your life, you know you are special and that God has sanctioned your existence in this world. Steve Jobs of blessed memory never believed he was a mistake despite the fact that he was neglected and abandoned by his biological parents. His parents thought he was a mistake, but you and I know better now. The amalgamation/union of the north and south protectorate gave rise to the present Federal Republic of Nigeria. Therefore saying the amalgamation was a mistake is tantamount to saying Nigeria and its citizens is a mistake! I am a Nigerian, my co-debaters are all Nigerians, the panels of judges are Nigerians, Seun himself is a Nigerian, and even the nairaland website is proudly Nigerian. Surely we can never be a mistake! There is a reason why we are all Nigerians, there is a purpose to our citizenship, even my opponent on this topic cannot dispute that; disputing it would be tantamount to him disputing his citizenship.

Obinoscopy, kudos and great job.

I have a question.

Your argument in support of amalgamation is based primarily on the concept that since man is not a mistake then amalgamation cannot be one as well. You did not justify why amalgamation a product of man reasoning or an artificial creation of man is equal to man.

Let me concede against my belief and for brevity sake that man is not a mistake, but can you justifiably say men do not make mistakes? Why wouldn’t you consider Lugard’s amalgamation a mistake considering the rest of what you consider benefits of amalgamation could still hold without having Nigeria as a country but with different nations occupying the present Nigerian geographical space while on the other hand inherent fracas, turmoil, political instability traced to forced union of incompatible nations could as well be avoided as inter-country fracas appear to be rare in our region despite language and cultural differences across borders?

coogar: question for obinoscopy....

nigeria has a nation today has about 370 tribes in it - given that no country in the west african region has up to that encompassed in one entity, don't you think this is an anomaly given the relatively small land size of nigeria?

Its not an anomaly because if you look at the etymology of such tribes, you will see some similarities among them. There is some measure of diffusion among the tribes. All we need is to emphasize more on our similarities than our differences. This is what opinion molders, tribal leaders and politicians should be doing

We want only valid/relevant questions not comments please.

Obinoscopy: All protocols duly observed.
My point is why blame our almost 100 years of amalgamation? Why blame Lugard? Even if it was for his selfish reasons, is he still in Nigeria. Is he still milking us dry? No.

Our leaders are the ones destroy our God given country. When they cling on to central power they shout ONE NIGERIA. When they lose out they they shout NIGERIA WAS FORCED UPON US!

They are just hypocrites and nothing more. We need to resist being deceived by these people. They just want means to hang on to power either centrally or regionally. As a politician rightly put it, "its a do or die affair"

Great job so far. I have a question for you:

Don't you think it's foolhardy to use USA as a case study for Nigeria, since the entities that make up both countries are different? One is a country made up of separate ethnic/tribal nationalities, while the other was founded by immigrants.

Obinoscopy: All protocols duly observed.

My opponent is well verse and is an academic elite as is evidenced with his historical elaborations. But with all humility I will say he did not give us the proof that th 1914 amalgamation was a mistake. He just told about what led to the amalgamation and then went ahead to tell us the woes we are facing in this country. But he failed to relate the amalgamation (CAUSE) to our present troubles (EFFECT)

I'll also tackle some of his positions one after the other as time would so permit me.



Spain is a European country yet they are not a homogenous society. There are different ethnic groups, and they speak different language such as Basque, Catalan, Galician and Occitan. If you are adept with Spanish history, you will know there is a serious ethnic polarity and demand for self determination within ethnic groups in that country. The same can also be said of Turkey where there is an Islamic majority and Christian minority.

Correct

Castille and Aragon merged through marriage and conquered the rest of Spain after the Muslim Moors were driven out in 1492 after the fall of Granada. Asturias was the only region that wasn't captured by the Moors and the 'reconquista' started in Asturias.

The point is that the other regions came under Castille and Aragon.

Prof Corruption:

Obinoscopy, kudos and great job.

I have a question.

Your argument in support of amalgamation is based primarily on the concept that since man is not a mistake then amalgamation cannot be one as well. You did not justify why amalgamation a product of man reasoning or an artificial creation of man is equal to man.

Let me concede against my belief and for brevity sake that man is not a mistake, but can you justifiably say men do not make mistakes? Why wouldn’t you consider Lugard’s amalgamation a mistake considering the rest of what you consider benefits of amalgamation could still hold without having Nigeria as a country but with different nations occupying the present Nigerian geographical space while on the other hand inherent fracas, turmoil, political instability traced to forced union of incompatible nations could as well be avoided as inter-country fracas appear to be rare in our region despite language and cultural differences across borders?

I did not exactly get your question. But I could like to counter you on the bolded.

Amalgamation or no amalgamation cannot stop fracas or turmoil, rather dialogue, consultations, understanding and tolerance can. Countries like Sudan and South Sudan or India and Pakistan are still engaging in wars despite the fact that they refused to remain amalgamated

Malcolm-X:


Great job so far. I have a question for you:

Don't you think it's foolhardy to use USA as a case study for Nigeria, since the entities that make up both countries are different? One is a country made up of separate ethnic/tribal nationalities, while the other was founded by immigrants.

I will like to respectfully counter you on the bolded. The US was not only founded by immigrants. Some regions were annexed either by purchase or by war without consideration for the natives but for the economic gains to be benefited from such regions thereof.

Judges,

I hope you are almost through with your preliminary ratings now. After the ddebaters are through with answering final questions we would declare the debate closed, pls send your scores immediately to oam4j@yahoo.com and jarusnairaland@yahoo.com.

OAM4J will collate and announce results here immediately all the judges' results come in

While that is on, let debaters continue to answerr questions directed at them. We would blow the final whistle soon.

Obinoscopy:

I did not exactly get your question. But I could like to counter you on the bolded.

Amalgamation or no amalgamation cannot stop fracas or turmoil, rather dialogue, consultations, understanding and tolerance can. Countries like Sudan and South Sudan or India and Pakistan are still engaging in wars despite the fact that they refused to remain amalgamated

By the very nature of man, there will be conflict. We understand that fact.

It is the conflict that arises from amalgamation that we are focusing on in this debate.

Sudan and South Sudan were joined by the British and have separated after years of co-existence and wars.

Current issues in Pakistan are irrelevant here. What is relevant about Pakistan to this debate, is that it was separated from India due to differences between both groups.

Indeed, the issues between India and Pakistan still stem from their forced union.

Obinoscopy:

I will like to respectfully counter you on the bolded. The US was not only founded by immigrants. Some regions were annexed either by purchase or by war without consideration for the natives but for the economic gains to be benefited from such regions thereof.

That line of argument can be used for most countries. This debate is about Mr A forcing Mr S to Marry Miss N and not about Mr S taking Miss N by force. That is a separate debate.

My question goes to Kat


Do you agree that even without Amalgamation, corruptions, turmoil would still probably occur, so why would we say that Amalgamation was a mistake?

Katsumoto:
Current issues in Pakistan are irrelevant here. What is relevant about Pakistan to this debate, is that it was separated from India due to differences between both groups.

Indeed, the issues between India and Pakistan still stem from their forced union.

Issues from Pakistan is relevant here because the partition of India to form Pakistan and India did not stop the tensions and wars among them.

Also even the state of Pakistan that was created still had to be partitioned further to Pakistan and Bangladesh

As we speek, the region, Khartum is heavily polarised as a battle whether that region should be partitioned or not.

Partitioning will not solve our problem, rather dialoguing, consultations, tolerance, understanding our differences and choosing leaders that will eschew corruption and promote social justice is the answer.

Katsumoto:

That line of argument can be used for most countries. This debate is about Mr A forcing Mr S to Marry Miss N and not about Mr S taking Miss N by force. That is a separate debate.

Wrong again, the debate is not about Mr A himself but but the actions thereof which is the 'forceful marriage.' Who the perpetuator of the action is, is inconsequential.

larride: My question goes to Kat


Do you agree that even without Amalgamation, corruptions, turmoil would still probably occur, so why would we say that Amalgamation was a mistake?

It is difficult to say but likely.

Even if I agree that corruption would occur, it would not occur in the grandiose manner it is been prosecuted.

There is corruption in the US and Europe but there is development. Where is the development in Nigeria?

People don't even have to try, they are protected by the unitarist political structure.

The local government chairman doesnt have to care about his constituencies because his election was financed by a godfather in Abuja.

To illustrate, a sitting governor was kidnapped by individuals who were protected at the center.

Obinoscopy:

Issues from Pakistan is relevant here because the partition of India to form Pakistan and India did not stop the tensions and wars among them.

Also even the state of Pakistan that was created still had to be partitioned further to Pakistan and Bangladesh

As we speek, the region, Khartum is heavily polarised as a battle whether that region should be partitioned or not.

Partitioning will not solve our problem, rather dialoguing, consultations, tolerance, understanding our differences and choosing leaders that will eschew corruption and promote social justice is the answer.

What you are saying is that since tensions will linger for a while, they should continue to live together?

Over 2 million people died when the fighting started in India. How many have died since the amalgamation? Has it been up to 2 million? If separation saves one life, it is worth it.