shymexx:

Was Nigeria really a "Nation" in 1964, or a colony? What did the Nigerian flag in 1914 look like?

Let me help you out:

1914

So, now it's about flag? Lol Maybe Australia and New Zealand are not countries since their flags are replication of the British flag.

Afam4eva:
So, now it's about flag? Lol Maybe Australia and New Zealand are not countries since their flags are replication of the British flag.

The Queen of England is still the Head of State for both countries.

Afam4eva:
So, now it's about flag? Lol Maybe Australia and New Zealand are not countries since their flags are replication of the British flag.

Australia and New Zealand are completely different in this context. Technically, they are still part of the UK, with mostly ethnic Britons, and the Queen is still the head of both countries.

...Edit

Ok, let's throw Eritrea in there to make it clearer.

Eritrea became a colony of Italy in 1890, Great Britain in 1941, Ethiopia in 1941 and became independent in 1993.

So, which one of the four should they celebrate?

Independence parade at the Police College, Ikeja, Lagos, Southwest Nigeria

What

shymexx:

Australia and New Zealand are completely different in this context. Technically, they are still part of the UK, with mostly ethnic Britons, and the Queen is still the head of both countries.

But are they countries or not? Should it matter who's on guard as far as they have the idiosyncrasies of a country and are referred to one. You guys are mistaking a sovereign country with a country.

CFCfan:
The Queen of England is still the Head of State for both countries.

Same with Canada. Is Canada not a country?

Afam4eva:
But are they countries or not? Should it matter who's on guard as far as they have the idiosyncrasies of a country and are referred to one. You guys are mistaking a sovereign country with a country.

How about state what those two countries have in common with Nigeria? Are the aborigines in-charge over there? Stop comparing apples to oranges.

shymexx: Ok, let's throw Eritrea in there to make it clearer.

Eritrea became a colony of Italy in 1890, Great Britain in 1941, Ethiopia in 1941 and became independent in 1993.

So, which one of the four should they celebrate?

They date of birth is the day they were known as a country. I don't know if it was under Italy or Great Britain.

I wonder why Nigerian blame the British for what transpired in 1914 since according to some of you, Nigeria was born in 1960. Shouldn't we be blaming ourselves instead if that's the case?

Colonial Nigeria was not a country/nation. It was a piece of land owned (illegally) by Royal Niger Company.

Why do you want to celebrate your enslavement? Nigeria was amalgamated for easy exploitation not for easy nation building.

Why would anyone want to celebrate a year that the white man gained total colonial control over a geographical region in sub-saharan Africa, isn't this what happened in 1914?
1914 is the year Nigeria became subject to the rule of the British Monarchy, and the amalgamation was just a way to put in place a more cohesive and centralized government, which in turn helped dampen the effects(constraints) in ruling two different teriitories separated by just rivers.

The fact remains, a SOVEREIGN nation is the same thing as an INDEPENDENT nation, which is also the same thing as an AUTONOMOUS nation, which by all definitions thus mean; "A nation/country with complete constitutional powers to rule and govern itself".

Don't get it twisted, this is what we should be celebrating as we did yesterday...definitely not 1914 when we were forced to answer to Her Majesty's Crown.

Afam4eva:
They date of birth is the day they were known as a country. I don't know if it was under Italy or Great Britain.

I wonder why Nigerian blame the British for what transpired in 1914 since according to some of you, Nigeria was born in 1960. Shouldn't we be blaming ourselves instead if that's the case?

Well, Eritrea became a country in 1993.

The Brits provided the blueprint for the nation-state in which the indigenous people consolidated on, to form Nigeria. However, they had option to opt out of the union in 1960 - and the "opt-out" alone should tell you that it wasn't really a country pre-1960. I also cited the nationality of the people - they were British.

Moreover, Nigerians mostly blame the British for colonialism and the for giving power to the North to lord over the rest of the country. The Brits only amalgamated the country to maximise their colonial profits and for easy rule - just as they did in India. Should Pakistan and Bangladesh also celebrate colonial India?

crackhaus: Why would anyone want to celebrate the year the white man gained total colonial control over a geographical area in sub-saharan Africa, isn't this what happened in 1914?
1914 is the year Nigeria became subject to the rule of the British Monarchy, and the amalgamation was just a way to put in place a more cohesive and centralized government, which in turn helped dampen the effects(constraints) in ruling two different teriitories separated by just rivers.

The fact remains, a SOVEREIGN nation is the same thing as an INDEPENDENT nation, which is also the same thing as an AUTONOMOUS nation, which by all definitions thus mean; "A nation/country with complete constitutional powers to rule and govern itself".

Don't get it twisted, this is what we should be celebrating as we did yesterday...definitely not 1914 when we were forced to answer to Her Majesty's Crown.

It's really not about what we should be celebrating. I could care less if we celebrate neither. But the focus here, is when Nigeria became a country and not a sovereign country.

Billyonaire: FASHOLA IS IGNORANT HERE.

NIGERIA BECAME SOVEREIGN NATION IN 1914
BUT GOT HER INDEPENDENCE 1960

WITHOUT 1914 THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO 1960 SO 1914 GAVE US IDENTITY AND IS A GREAT TIME IN HISTORY.

I CELEBRATE......
I JUBILATE.........

An absolute 'thicko' calling Fashola ignorant. How ironic. My friend, go and improve your general knowledge, with an emphasis on comprehending the meaning of words, before coming here to embarrass yourself. It seems you don't know what a Sovereign Nation/State is before proclaiming Nigeria to be one in 1914. It is always you 'airheads' who are most vacuously ungracious with your utterances.

To make things crystal clear to even your ultra-thick brain, I present a link below which shows a list of sovereign states of the World by date of formation with Nigeria's date of acquisition of sovereignty given as 01 October 1960 i.e the date she gained independence from the United Kingdom. This is why Governor Fashola you insult is a leader while you are here displaying crass ignorance daily and pretending to be what your glaring lack of intelligence show you are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state

Sovereign state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Member states of the United Nations, all of which are sovereign states
A sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.[2] The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[3] While according to the declarative theory of state recognition a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation

shymexx:

Well, Eritrea became a country in 1993.

The Brits provided the blueprint for the nation-state in which the indigenous people consolidated on, to form Nigeria. However, they had option to opt out of the union in 1960 - and the "opt-out" alone should tell you that it wasn't really a country pre-1960. I also cited the nationality of the people - they were British.

Moreover, Nigerians mostly blame the British for colonialism and the for giving power to the North to lord over the rest of the country. The Brits only amalgamated the country to maximise their colonial profits and for easy rule - just as they did in India. Should Pakistan and Bangladesh also celebrate colonial India?

Pakistan and Bangladesh are no longer part of India, are they? So, why should they celebrate Colonial India? Their stories changed when they chose to separate from India. In the case of these two countries, thei date of birth of was when they broke and of India and Pakistan respectively. In the case of Nigeria, we did not break out of Britain. There was just a change in guard while the country remained.

Eritrea's date of birth is 1993 because that was the date they got independence from Ethiopia pretty much like how South Sudan got independence from Sudan.

Billyonaire: FASHOLA IS IGNORANT HERE.

NIGERIA BECAME SOVEREIGN NATION IN 1914
BUT GOT HER INDEPENDENCE 1960

WITHOUT 1914 THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO 1960 SO 1914 GAVE US IDENTITY AND IS A GREAT TIME IN HISTORY.

I CELEBRATE......
I JUBILATE.........

You need to be banned from this section cuz you have proved yourself to lack the basics of politics. How can a state be sovereign and still be dependent on another state ? A sovereign state must have a clear cut territorial boundary, her own indigenious constitution and government , her own military to protect her territorial integrity and most importantly, a PRESIDENT which is the most significant authority of a sovereign state

Now ask yourself if Nigeria possessed any of those qualities as at 1914. Sooner or later, you too will be aspiring to be a mod here. SMH

Afam4eva:
Pakistan and Bangladesh are no longer part of India, are they? So, why should they celebrate Colonial India? Their stories changed when they chose to separate from India. In the case of these two countries, thei date of birth of was when they broke and of India and Pakistan respectively. In the case of Nigeria, we did not break out of Britain. There was just a change in guard while the country remained.

Eritrea's date of birth is 1993 because that was the date they got independence from Ethiopia pretty much like how South Sudan got independence from Sudan.

Ok, let's say the northern protectorate opted-out like Ahmadu Bello wanted to, before he was persuaded by Zik - and the remnant of the amalgamation formed a country. Would there still be any need for 1914? The answer to that should end this.

Afam4eva:
It's really not about what we should be celebrating. I could care less if we celebrate neither. But the focus here, is when Nigeria became a country and not a sovereign country.

And Nigeria did not become a country in 1914. The country has always been there.

demmy:

And Nigeria did not become a country in 1914. The country has always been there.

So, there was Nigeria before the Northern and Southern protectorate were amalgamated?

shymexx:

Ok, let's say the northern protectorate opted-out like Ahmadu Bello wanted to, before he was persuaded by Zik - and the remnant of the amalgamation formed a country. Would there still be any need for 1914? The answer to that should end this.

if the Northern Nigeria opted out before 1960, 1914 would have still being Nigeria's birthday. The date won't change. Imagine if Eastern Nigeria breaks away from Nigeria in 2015, will the date of birth of Nigeria become 2015? The date of birth will remain 1914 while the date of independence will also remain 1960. Do you think India changed their history when Pakistan(and Bangladesh) broke away?

~Bluetooth:


You need to be banned from this section cuz you have proved yourself to lack the basics of politics. How can a state be sovereign and still be dependent on another state ? A sovereign state must have a clear cut territorial boundary, her own indigenious constitution and government , her own military to protect her territorial integrity and most importantly, a PRESIDENT which is the most significant authority of a sovereign state

Now ask yourself if Nigeria possessed any of those qualities as at 1914. Sooner or later, you too will be aspiring to be a mod here. SMH

What he lack is proper education. His education is funded by the Ford Foundation and others whose purpose is to mis-educate the average African about the reality.

~Bluetooth:


You need to be banned from this section cuz you have proved yourself to lack the basics of politics. How can a state be sovereign and still be dependent on another state ? A sovereign state must have a clear cut territorial boundary, her own indigenious constitution and government , her own military to protect her territorial integrity and most importantly, a PRESIDENT which is the most significant authority of a sovereign state

Now ask yourself if Nigeria possessed any of those qualities as at 1914. Sooner or later, you too will be aspiring to be a mod here. SMH

Unfortunately and sadly...that is what the Politics section have been reduced to by the hungry paid-agents of GEJ.

Now, there is no doubt about the historic importance of the 1914 amalgamation in Nigeria’s history. It was the first time that the British colonial administration in Nigeria tried to bring the culturally diverse people of Nigeria together under one central colonial administration. Without the amalgamation Nigeria would not have developed or emerged as one country. Instead, we would now have two, or possibly three, different countries. But the manner in which these celebrations take place is equally important. The question is why should we, as a nation be seen to be celebrating the 1914 so-called ‘amalgamation’ of Nigeria by the British colonial power? The Federal Government argues that Nigeria is not a historical accident and, having existed for nearly 100 years as a country, merits celebration. It is important that we get Nigeria’s colonial history right. If we do, it will be obvious to us that we should not be celebrating such a dubious event in our colonial history, as the ‘amalgamation’ was the direct product of British imperialism in West Africa.
To suggest, or argue, as the federal authorities did, that Nigeria is not a historical accident, but a pre-ordained entity is a distortion of Nigeria’s history. Nothing can be further from the truth. This claim should not go unchallenged, or else we will be creating a false and terrible legacy. Before British colonialism in Nigeria, several kingdoms such as the Oyo Empire, the Fulani Emirates, and the Benin Kingdom already existed in Nigeria, and might have evolved over time as nation states. It was British imperialism that eventually destroyed these empires. Before its independence from British colonial rule in 1960, Nigeria did not exist even as a distinct state, recognised by other foreign states. It was only recognised as a mere British colony, a British dependency that, for all practical purposes, did not have any state identity at all. It was simply part of British West Africa, the Southern part of which was for a while governed by British colonial representatives from the old Gold Coast. Its acquisition by Britain as a colonial territory was actually accidental. It was the direct consequence of Anglo-French rivalry for trade and free markets in Africa.
Britain was not really looking at the time for new colonies, or territories in West Africa, but for trade and free markets. In 1861, the British acquired Lagos as a colony after gun boat diplomacy (state terrorism). But in 1865, the report of a parliamentary select committee of the British House of Commons had advised against any further acquisition of colonial territory in West Africa. The old Gold Coast (now Ghana) and Sierra Leone had already been acquired as British colonies. This report was accepted by the British government and dampened imperialist impulses for a while. But by 1885, the informal sway exercised by British merchants in the delta area, which led to Jaja of Opobo being exiled from the delta area by the British Consul, had been formalised at the 1885 Berlin Congress that simply divided Africa as spheres of influence of Britain, and the other European powers in Africa.
The Africans were neither present at the Berlin Congress nor even consulted about the manner their territories were divided among the European powers. It was a shameful episode in the history of human civilisation, of which even the European colonisers cannot really be proud. It was just as bad as its precursor, the slave trade. Northern Nigeria was simply handed over as the Niger Coast Protectorate to the Royal Niger Company, a British chartered trading company operating in Nigeria, in much the same way as large parts of British India were handed over to the British East India Company. In 1885, the British had proclaimed a Southern Protectorate in Southern Nigeria after the conclusion of fraudulent and unequal treaties with the Obas there. In 1900, the two protectorates of Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria, as well as the colony of Lagos, were separate entities. As at that point, there were three separate British dependencies in the territory that was later named as Nigeria, by Flora Shaw, the wife of Lord Lugard, and colonial editor of the London Times, with extensive connections in Whitehall.
Sir Frederick (later Lord) Lugard was to play a key role in Nigeria’s subsequent colonial history. He had originally being brought to Northern Nigeria in 1895 from Uganda for military campaigns by George Goldie of the chartered Royal Niger Company and was the man who conquered Northern Nigeria militarily. Sokoto, the seat of the caliphate, was the last Northern territory conquered by the British in 1903. His military campaign in Northern Nigeria included his famous march to Borgu and the race to Nikki which formed the basis of British claims to Northern Nigeria. It was as a result of his successful military campaign in the North that on January 1, 1900, he was appointed the first British High Commissioner for Northern Nigeria, after the administration of the area by the Royal Niger Company had been brought to an end and a British protectorate formally established there. This was some 15 years after a separate and distinct British protectorate had been established in Southern Nigeria.
Even then, Britain had no definite plans for the future of its new colony. There was no real debate in the British House of Commons about what to do with its new colony as there was no real enthusiasm among leading British politicians for acquiring new colonies. The emphasis in the British colonial office was on keeping to the barest minimum the cost of administering this vast territory. There was little long range planning in Britain for the future of its new colony. In the event, Nigeria was at first left and ruled in three distinct parts, later reduced to two units, Northern and Southern Nigeria, and in 1912 placed under Sir (later Lord) Lugard as its first British Governor General of colonial Nigeria.
•To be continued

http://thenationonlineng.net/new/lord-lugard-and-the-1914-amalgamation-of-nigeria/

Afam4eva:
if the Northern Nigeria opted out before 1960, 1914 would have still being Nigeria's birthday. The date won't change. Imagine if Eastern Nigeria breaks away from Nigeria in 2015, will the date of birth of Nigeria become 2015? The date of birth will remain 1914 while the date of independence will also remain 1960. Do you think India changed their history when Pakistan(and Bangladesh) broke away?

Lmao... What's the significance of the amalgamation, if one-half, is a different country? Perhaps, you only care about the name, "Nigeria." Ok, let's say the name of the country was changed in 1960, would you still care about "Nigeria?"

Anyway, India and Pakistan don't care about the British Raj. They're proud people and they both only celebrate 1947. Nigeria on the other hand is still stuck in the colonial era.

ilugunboy:





Unfortunately and sadly...that is what the Politics section have been reduced to by the hungry paid-agents of GEJ.

Honestly its just annoying. They don't even know what it takes for a state to be recognized as a soverign state yet you see them condemning and misleading those who want to learn. Nigeria has always been a vassal state until 1960 when she has her own president which is the emblem of sovereignity. You can't be sovereign if you still listen to the privy council in London for direction and advice !

Afam4eva:
So, there was Nigeria before the Northern and Southern protectorate were amalgamated?

The country is always there. It became a unified property of the Royal Niger Company in 1914 and named Nigeria (don't be fool by the name) for easy exploitation and to protect it from the French and German properties that surrounded it. Same with the USA. They only celebrate independent and don't care about the colonial America which was just a property of the British monarch.

Succincts: Its just 2 sides of a coin if you ask me.

yesterday we marked 53years of independence as a nation. Next yr we wil b celebrating, 100 Years of existence as a nation.

using conception and birth of baby is a wrong analogy. and i will explain.

1. at conception of a baby you dont name the baby. (Was Fashola called Fashola when he was still in the womb). so if NIgeria recieved the name NIgeria at 1914. it can not then be said to be analogous to conception rather it is analogous to birth.

2. at birth a child is as human as old man, but he is still dependent. so also we can liken NIgeria at 1914 to be a full nation but still dependent.

so Fashola was wrong on this one.

the non celebration or marking of the cetenary does not negate it as the birth of Nigeria.

so i think the general explanation to the debate is that.
1. whereas 1960 marks the beginning of independence of an already existing nation. 1914 clearly marks the coming into existence of the nation. though receiving orders from another just as a child recieved orders from other human beings but yet he is still a human.

2. Nigerians have ignored celebrating their birth date. please dont ask me why.

gracias for listening

Brilliant submission you made here!
Clearly, it's a debatable situation, which even made BRF threw it open for debate. You can't just use biological conception to situate our nationhood appropriately.
Though we became a Sovereign Nation in 1960, the term and location 'Nigeria' was formed in 1914 by Lord Lugard's act of amalgamation.
However, my own opinion is that the wanton waste, and of course looting, all in the name of centenary celebration should be shelved, while we organize a plebiscite to decide a genuine path to building an all encompassing Nation.
Pray tell, to whose interest is it if we spend our scarce resources to wine and dine over a Nation that is on the brink of collapse? If you built a house that is about collapse, do you call for house warming festivities or you get a fresh set of building Engineers to look at the way of salvaging the house?
Acute lack of priorities on what matters most is what our government officials suffer from.

Succincts: Its just 2 sides of a coin if you ask me.

yesterday we marked 53years of independence as a nation. Next yr we wil b celebrating, 100 Years of existence as a nation.

using conception and birth of baby is a wrong analogy. and i will explain.

1. at conception of a baby you dont name the baby. (Was Fashola called Fashola when he was still in the womb). so if NIgeria recieved the name NIgeria at 1914. it can not then be said to be analogous to conception rather it is analogous to birth.

2. at birth a child is as human as old man, but he is still dependent. so also we can liken NIgeria at 1914 to be a full nation but still dependent.

so Fashola was wrong on this one.

the non celebration or marking of the cetenary does not negate it as the birth of Nigeria.

so i think the general explanation to the debate is that.
1. whereas 1960 marks the beginning of independence of an already existing nation. 1914 clearly marks the coming into existence of the nation. though receiving orders from another just as a child recieved orders from other human beings but yet he is still a human.

2. Nigerians have ignored celebrating their birth date. please dont ask me why.

gracias for listening

Another great point . . . . . .

Afam4eva:
It's really not about what we should be celebrating. I could care less if we celebrate neither. But the focus here, is when Nigeria became a country and not a sovereign country.

You make me laugh bruv. The topic on this thread, as with Fashola's argument is based on what should or should not be celebrated. It's you guys that started arguing over the mis-use of words like Country, Sovereignty, and so on.

But since you want to get clarification on Country versus Sovereign Country, I'll oblige you bruv.

A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY IS A COUNTRY, aint no damnn difference.
Here is a definition for you;
"A country is the most usual, neutral word for a geograhical area that has or used to have ITS OWN GOVERNMENT".
Now by that definition, we were not a country before 1960 because we were under the direct rule of the British Monarchy/Government...definitely not our own Government.
What we were, if that will serve your purpose to name Nigeria before 1960, is a NATIONALIZATION of people with the same or identical culture and history living in an area under one government (in this case, the British Government).

The amalgamation actually brought together two different nations of people (northerners and southerners) in the most widely rumoured mistake of the century, and this was done out of greed and blind ambition by the British colonialists.

Afam4eva:
Who's talking biology? When a man tells you his wife has conceived, it means his wife has put to bird or that he wife don born pikin.

I wonder how you found your way to this section.

LOL! This our moderator sabi book no be small! Dem say I no dey intelligent but I don see pesin wey I better pass.At least I still get hope. Can't stop laughing at this comment. Bwahahahaha!!

Afam4eva:
So, there was Nigeria before the Northern and Southern protectorate were amalgamated?

Look at this nigga, of course there was a geographical area named Nigeria before the amalgamation, Lord Lugard's bittchh (Flora Shaw) made sure of that in 1898 long before 1914. It was just a name given to the largest geograhical tropic region south of the Sudan.