Obinoscopy:

There is no country that has an homogenous ethnic group. Show me a country and I will show you 2 or more ethnic group.

And its okay for each ethnic group to have their own agendas, the most important thing is the ability for these agendas to be harmonised and a common point agreed upon

I have given examples from all over the world to demonstrate why amalgamation was bad. You failed to present any countries that were forcefully amalgamated and which are doing well today, economically and without ethnic issues. I am waiting.

Katsumoto:

Nigerian regions traded commodities in that era. In the early 70s, commodity prices went down except for oil. But commodity prices rebounded by the early 80s. But did their revenues rebound in Nigeria? A big no. Is Nigeria a big exporter of rubber, palm oil, groundnuts today? We all know the answer to that question.

Which was why Nigeria suffered in the early 80s when oil prices went down and Shagari had to implement austere measures.

Thank you

We are no longer exporters of such commodities becaucse our corrupt leaders were content with the abundant revenues from crude oil

Katsumoto:

I have given examples from all over the world to demonstrate why amalgamation was bad. You failed to present any countries that were forcefully amalgamated and which are doing well today, economically and without ethnic issues. I am waiting.

I gave you the example of the US.

Obinoscopy: And if I may ask, after the division along the Northern and Southern Protectorates, what next?

Do you think the SW won't want to divide from the SS and SE. Even within the SS, they'll want to divide along their ethnic lines vis a vis the Ijaw nation, the Itsekiri nation, the Urhobo nation, etc.

Even the North will be futher partitioned as the NC don't see themselves as homogenous with the Hausa. Even hostilities exist between the Hausas and the Fulanis

Are you suggesting that balkanization was bad?

Was the USSR not balkanized? Was Yugoslavia not Balkanized?

Every nation that wasn't conquered should have a say in its future.

Since the British conquered all groups, perhaps it shouldn't have left.

Obinoscopy:

I gave you the example of the US.

I am sure many will agree that the US is different from Nigeria.

The states agreed to fight as one. In any case, the fact that you can not find any success stories kills your argument dead.

End of discussion. Or find amalgamation success stories.

Katsumoto:

How can you not see that the quality of leaders that Nigeria has been producing has been reducing drastically year on year since amalgamation?

If we agree that Nigerians are more knowledgeable today than in 1900, the how do you explain the declining quality of leaders?

Take a look at Bini kings, Oyo kings, the Hausa kings, Bornu kings; do you see any leaders today that can match them?

Please expatiate on the bolded, Katz, because I believe strongly that the present-day responsibilities of governance are far bigger and weightier than those of the pre-colonial period. I don't think the Oba of Benin, for instance, was overly burdened with the responsibility of ensuring safe drinking water, good schools, hospitals and roads, adequate power supply, attracting foreign investment and job-creation (at least in the modern sense). To my mind their primary responsibilities lay in ensuring law and order, adequate food production, efficient tax collection, protection of the kingdom from external attacks and little else.

Doesn't the comparison look a little bit unfair?

HNosegbe:

Please expatiate on the bolded, Katz, because I believe strongly that the present-day responsibilities of governance are far bigger and weightier than those of the pre-colonial period. I don't think the Oba of Benin, for instance, was overly burdened with the responsibility of ensuring safe drinking water, good schools, hospitals and roads, adequate power supply, attracting foreign investment and job-creation (at least in the modern sense). To my mind their primary responsibilities lay in ensuring law and order, adequate food production, efficient tax collection, protection of the kingdom from external attacks and little else.

Doesn't the comparison look a little bit unfair?

1. You can only tackle what is in front of you.

2. Do you think leaders of today will be able to tackle issues of the future? No

3. The leaders of yesterday also didn't have the revenues of today to deal with but poverty was not the problem it is today

4. The quality of life in Nigeria today is bad for a majority

5. Nigeria is doing badly in all facets of life. A nation of 160 million people couldn't win a single Olympic medal.

5. Based on the fact that those kings, generally led well, they are better than the leaders of today.

Katsumoto:

Are you suggesting that balkanization was bad?

Was the USSR not balkanized? Was Yugoslavia not Balkanized?

Every nation that wasn't conquered should have a say in its future.

Since the British conquered all groups, perhaps it shouldn't have left.

Do you think USSR liked the fact that they were balkanised? They never did, rather their major enemy, the USA where the one's jubilating

Katsumoto:
Are you suggesting that balkanization was bad?

Was the USSR not balkanized? Was Yugoslavia not Balkanized?

Every nation that wasn't conquered should have a say in its future.

Since the British conquered all groups, perhaps it shouldn't have left.

While I agree that the balkanization of USSR brought more grassroot developments, good governance, wealth etc.. to the new nations created from the old soviet bloc. The power the USSR commanded in world politics is unrivalled by none of the countries that emerged from the balkanization of USSR.

Don't you think the balkanization has made almost all the old soviet bloc countries(except Russia) irrelevant in world politics?

Obinoscopy:

Do you think USSR liked the fact that they were balkanised? They never did, rather their major enemy, the USA where the one's jubilating

This is a comment for the pub. Who balkanized the USSR? Was it the USA?

The fact remains that groups of people should not be forced to stay together if they are unhappy together. The result is usually bad like in Yogoslavia when the groups don't discuss their future or good as in the case of Czechoslovakia when there is dialogue.

Malcolm-X:


While I agree that the balkanization of USSR brought more grassroot developments, good governance, wealth etc.. to the new nations created from the old soviet bloc. The power the USSR commanded in world politics is unrivalled by none of the countries that emerged from the balkanization of USSR.

Don't you think the balkanization has made almost all the old soviet bloc countries(except Russia) irrelevant in world politics?

Even Russia has lost its grip on international politics as it would have under the USSR

@Obinoscopy


I shall appreciate if you could point out any similarity between amalgamated USA and Nigeria. In one instance, you wrote some places were bought while some other places were won as a result of war. There were desired energy and interest to buy or win something by the puritans in case of USA. Did you perceive such cherished and desired interest in the eyes of people who later became Nigerians as in the case of Nigeria?

Malcolm-X:


While I agree that the balkanization of USSR brought more grassroot developments, good governance, wealth etc.. to the new nations created from the old soviet bloc. The power the USSR commanded in world politics is unrivalled by none of the countries that emerged from the balkanization of USSR.

Don't you think the balkanization has made almost all the old soviet bloc countries(except Russia) irrelevant in world politics?

Of what use is relevance when people are dying? Do you keep a nation together just because of relevance in global politics? If you are weak at home, you will be weak outside your home.

They were only as relevant as long as there were no issues. Domestic issues must be addressed before external ones.

Katsumoto:
Of what use is relevance when people are dying? Do you keep a nation together just because of relevance in global politics? If you are weak at home, you will be weak outside your home.

They were only as relevant as long as there were no issues. Domestic issues must be addressed before external ones.

Food for thought.

Katsumoto:

1. You can only tackle what is in front of you.

Agreed, and that's why I believe the comparison with pre-colonial rulers is not in order. I mean, there is no empirical evidence that Oba Ewuare would have excelled as Governor of Edo State, or Aare Afonja in Kwara.

2. Do you think leaders of today will be able to tackle issues of the future? No

Yes our present-day leaders are grossly incompetent, but that is the exact reason why we won't use them as a benchmark to assess future leaders. The quality of leadership is ascertained by looking at how leaders are able to tackle the challenges of their time.

3. The leaders of yesterday also didn't have the revenues of today to deal with but poverty was not the problem it is today.

Agreed, but don't forget that we're measuring performance against RESPONSIBILITY as well as resources.

4. The quality of life in Nigeria today is bad for a majority.

Everyone is in agreement on this. No need flogging a dead horse.

5. Nigeria is doing badly in all facets of life. A nation of 160 million people couldn't win a single Olympic medal.

I guess the question here is: Would pre-colonial societies have excelled if we had the Games in those times? Also how many Nigerians won medals under the British flag during the colonial period?

5. Based on the fact that those kings, generally led well, they are better than the leaders of today.

There is no evidence that they "led well" relative to leaders of today. There was for the most part no culture of accountability. Leaders were mostly monarchs who were accountable to no one (What does "Kabiyesi" mean?).

Katsumoto:

Of what use is relevance when people are dying? Do you keep a nation together just because of relevance in global politics? If you are weak at home, you will be weak outside your home.

They were only as relevant as long as there were no issues. Domestic issues must be addressed before external ones.

Have u heard of National Interest at all?

Dede1: @Obinoscopy


I shall appreciate if you could point out any similarity between amalgamated USA and Nigeria. In one instance, you wrote some places were bought while some other places were won as a result of war. There were desired energy and interest to buy or win something by the puritans in case of USA. Did you perceive such cherished and desired interest in the eyes of people who later became Nigerians as in the case of Nigeria?

Its a pity I'm no longer using my laptop but my phone so I'll be brief

The similarities is that of an abinitio selfish interest. The annexation in US was not to help the natives per se but to facilitate revenue generation for them.

The north was annexed to the south so that trade could get to the north. Agricultural produce and mineral resources from the north could be exported via the ports and thereby generate revenue.

free2ryhme:


Have u heard of National Interest at all?

Please elucidate further.

free2ryhme:

Have u heard of National Interest at all?

Why should national interests outweigh the people's interests?

Don't you think you need to put your house in order before thinking about your community?

Obinoscopy:

Its a pity I'm no longer using my laptop but my phone so I'll be brief

The similarities is that of an abinitio selfish interest. The north was annexed to the south so that trade could get to the north. Agricultural produce and mineral resources from the north could be exported via the ports and thereby generate revenue

You didn't answer his question.

He wants to know, what desire was expressed by Nigerians for the amalgamation of 1914 which can be compared with the desire for the US by the 13 original states.

Which Nigerians clamoured/fought for Amalgamation?

Malcolm-X:


Why should national interests outweigh the people's interests?

Don't you think you need to put your house in order before thinking about your community?

So would you put your house in order by dividing them or by calling an internal family meeting?

Katsumoto:

You didn't answer his question.

He wants to know, what desire was expressed by Nigerians for the amalgamation of 1914 which can be compared with the desire for the US by the 13 original states.

Which Nigerians clamoured/fought for Amalgamation?

You don't seem to get me. I was refering to the natives. The natives had no such desires just like Nigerians never also had any desire (I'm happy you used that word Nigeria)

Malcolm-X:


While I agree that the balkanization of USSR brought more grassroot developments, good governance, wealth etc.. to the new nations created from the old soviet bloc. The power the USSR commanded in world politics is unrivalled by none of the countries that emerged from the balkanization of USSR.

Don't you think the balkanization has made almost all the old soviet bloc countries(except Russia) irrelevant in world politics?

I don't necessarily agree with the bolded. There is no evidence suggesting that the quality of life for the AVERAGE RUSSIAN has improved after the fall. Indeed the most significant events in Russia since then have arguably been the creation of a new elite class (the Oligarchs) from the below-market-value sale of former state-owned assets. Life in Moldova, Tajistikan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and all the other "jans" and "stans" have not really improved materially; indeed they only slightly better sub-Saharan African countries, and the gap is fast closing.

Indeed I can hardly point to a balkanised region where things have materially improved FOR THE COMMON MAN. At best, a new ruling class emerges.

Obinoscopy:

Its a pity I'm no longer using my laptop but my phone so I'll be brief

The similarities is that of an abinitio selfish interest. The annexation in US was not to help the natives per se but to facilitate revenue generation for them.

The north was annexed to the south so that trade could get to the north. Agricultural produce and mineral resources from the north could be exported via the ports and thereby generate revenue.

You have failed to establish the simplest of the case. Again, who engineered the annexation of the north to south and for whose interest? Remember the puritans where buying the grocery and cooking soup in case of USA. In Nigeria, the grocery and soup were done by someone who was not interest and will not taste the soup.

Obinoscopy:

So would you put your house in order by dividing them or by calling an internal family meeting?

When the "father" and "mother" don't get along/fight all the time, it's better for them to get a divorce and save the children's future; than stay in the "turbulent" union just to have a say as a "family" in the community.

Ladies and gentlemen, the debate is hereby officially declared closed.

Only 2 judges have sent their reports.

We still await scores from Ibime and PhysicsQED.

Pls send to oam4j@yahoo.com and jarusnairaland@yahoo.com.

Thread closed till we have full results. Next post is results. Pls stay tuned. Meanwhile, discussions may continue in planning thread.

PhysicsQED's results received, we are waiting on Ibime pls.

Obinoscopy:

So would you put your house in order by dividing them or by calling an internal family meeting?

You seem to be making a case for big sizes for nations. If that is the case, what should be best size?

Do you think Nigeria should acquire some or all of its neighbors?

Tiny Luxembourg seems to be doing better than most of the African countries that are bigger than it and have more resources than it.

When homogeneous nations have ethnic issues, it is better for them to be split than for them to become Yugoslavia/Liberia.

RESULTS

Judge A

Kats. Obin.
Presentation. 2. 3
Logic. 3. 3
Facts. 3. 2
Persuasiveness. 2. 3
Knowledge. 3. 3
TOTAL. 13. 14

Judge B

Kats. Obin.
Presentation. 4. 4
Logic. 4. 3
Facts. 4. 3
Persuasiveness. 3. 4
Knowledge. 4. 4
TOTAL. 19. 18