Each time i hear talks on saperation of nothern and southern nigeria, i use north and south sudan as a case study.

The north sudan felt they didnt need d south only to come bak few weeks after saperation to demand for a regular percentage of southern sudan oil -

i hope north nigeria wont do d same asuming a division ocurs.

I AM NOT WISHN FOR DIVISION

Is south the one giving them allowance before

that is the main reason for the amalgamation.
the south must finance the north.

kunlekunle: that is the main reason for the amalgamation.
the south must finance the north.

how? Explain beta please

Did they not survive before the amalgamation?
Were they not surviving during the regional system?

Even d discovery of crude oil d south were d ones feeding d north.hav u 4goten dat nigeria was called oil nigeria bcus of palm oil or is it cocoa,rubber and even all d sea ports ar 4rm d south,and my guy benue person wold slap u if u tel him he is 4rm north central he prefares u tel him dat he is 4rm d middle belt

Survive, but be extremely poor (like their neighbors).

The North will definitely survive as they can carter for their own food, shelter, and clothing needs. As for their illiteracy level which is affecting their health and quality of life, they can always get around it if they want to, without the help of the south.

CLIQBOY: Is south the one giving them allowance before

befor nko

]




”The reason for the decision of the British Government to amalgamate the two incompatible territories was
(b) purely financial or economic.[/b] The Northern Protectorate was not economically viable. It had become a great drain on the British tax payer. On the other hand, the Southern Protectorate was not just economically buoyant, it was producing surpluses every year. The British design was, therefore, to remove the Northern financial burden from its own neck and hang it on the neck of the hapless Southern Protectorate;
o according to Lord Harcourt, the British Colonial Secretary, unification of Nigeria demanded both "method" and "a man". The man was to be Lord Lugard and the method was to be the "marriage" of the two entities. According to Lord Harcourt:

[pre amalgamation
"We have released Northern Nigeria from the leading strings of the Treasury. The promising and well conducted youth is now on an allowance on his own and is about to effect an alliance with a Southern lady of means. I have issued the special license and Sir Frederick Lugard will perform the ceremony. May the union be fruitful and the couple constant".
Thus, in this "marriage", the North, right from the beginning, was to be "man" and "husband" and the South, the "woman" and "wife".
The use of the term, "Youth" (man) for the North and "Lady" (woman) for the South was not an accident, nor an exercise in humour. It was a deadly serious matter, with the game plan being to bring the two parties together in order to give the North political power over the South and permanent control over Southern resources.

British Cultural belief[
In the England of the time of Lord Harcourt, married woman had no independent existence outside their marriage. All the women's property and resources automatically became the husbands'. The woman could not enter into a contract in her own right. Her husband had to conclude all her contracts on her behalf.
Although this position altered by the Married Women's Property Act of 1882, Lord Harcourt had the Common Law position in mind when he decided to marry the young man without means, to the young lady of means. That latter was to provide the wherewithal for the former to live well and be master of the house for the rest of their lives. Omo Omoruyi has lamented as follows, regarding the devastating consequences of this marriage on the Southern lady of means::”

CLIQBOY: how? Explain beta please

As someone said the north is the husband while the south the wife.n believe u me the southerners are behaving just like d wife always gossiping dat the husband is mean to her he is maltreating she is d one taking care of d house n children.he is a lazy man who contribute nothing to d house.i have to use my money to feed our children.i am leaving his house.

The north who is the husband always want to be d head of the family hence norths greed 4 power .knowing dat he is benefiting much he will not agree wit the divorce which the wife seeks, he always go to his inlaws (britian,un,america)saying that all is well that she is lying against him.At home he threatened the wife(through crises n military) that since its a christian marriage (lord lugard d pastor) divorce has no place in xtianity only "till dead do us apart"

patanjaly: The north who is the husband always want to be d head of the family hence norths greed 4 power .knowing dat he is benefiting much he will not agree wit the divorce which the wife seeks, he always go to his inlaws (britian,un,america)saying that all is well that she is lying against him.At home he threatened the wife(through crises n military) that since its a christian marriage (lord lugard d pastor) divorce has no place in xtianity only "till dead do us apart"

I wish the husband divorce the wife x3 (North divorce the South).

kunlekunle: ]




”The reason for the decision of the British Government to amalgamate the two incompatible territories was
(b) purely financial or economic.[/b] The Northern Protectorate was not economically viable. It had become a great drain on the British tax payer. On the other hand, the Southern Protectorate was not just economically buoyant, it was producing surpluses every year. The British design was, therefore, to remove the Northern financial burden from its own neck and hang it on the neck of the hapless Southern Protectorate;
o according to Lord Harcourt, the British Colonial Secretary, unification of Nigeria demanded both "method" and "a man". The man was to be Lord Lugard and the method was to be the "marriage" of the two entities. According to Lord Harcourt:

[pre amalgamation
"We have released Northern Nigeria from the leading strings of the Treasury. The promising and well conducted youth is now on an allowance on his own and is about to effect an alliance with a Southern lady of means. I have issued the special license and Sir Frederick Lugard will perform the ceremony. May the union be fruitful and the couple constant".
Thus, in this "marriage", the North, right from the beginning, was to be "man" and "husband" and the South, the "woman" and "wife".
The use of the term, "Youth" (man) for the North and "Lady" (woman) for the South was not an accident, nor an exercise in humour. It was a deadly serious matter, with the game plan being to bring the two parties together in order to give the North political power over the South and permanent control over Southern resources.

British Cultural belief[
In the England of the time of Lord Harcourt, married woman had no independent existence outside their marriage. All the women's property and resources automatically became the husbands'. The woman could not enter into a contract in her own right. Her husband had to conclude all her contracts on her behalf.
Although this position altered by the Married Women's Property Act of 1882, Lord Harcourt had the Common Law position in mind when he decided to marry the young man without means, to the young lady of means. That latter was to provide the wherewithal for the former to live well and be master of the house for the rest of their lives. Omo Omoruyi has lamented as follows, regarding the devastating consequences of this marriage on the Southern lady of means::”

where you get this post?

mumumugu:

befor nko

who told you that?

YES!!!

But the leaders in the north must determine to forget about stealing oil and invest massively in agriculture and solid minerals development.Agriculture and manufacturing are what made the USA the richest country in the world.

It is very unfortunate that Nigerians think of agriculture as a poor man's profession,just because we have insisted on farming with hoe & cutlass used in 1700s instead of embracing mechanized modern agriculture.

They can survive by reviving their agriculture and trading with the south.But the only thing they cant survive is islamic fundamentalism,it is like wild harmattan fire that burns everything on its way.

@auwal so u want the wife(south) to become a widower.havn't u heard wat the south south forum said today wit Gej in attendance.they said they believe in one nigeria.remember she is too young to be a divorcee.lailai the devil is lie.

Yes it can survive but it would have to make hard choices just the other parts of Nigeria.

Northerners are generally less materialistic than southerners and should be able to adjust.

Their simple and content attitude towards life, I admire greatly. The elite on the other hand will suffer.

Katsumoto: Yes it can survive but it would have to make hard choices just the other parts of Nigeria.

Northerners are generally less materialistic than southerners and should be able to adjust.

Their simple and content attitude towards life, I admire greatly. The elite on the other hand will suffer.

hi,
their political structure is the root cause of their demise cum social cutural belief (the will of Allah) and religion.
they have an aristocratic system that does not allow middle class. i'll say its a lugardian style.
the elite does not beleive in the common man.

kunlekunle:

hi,
their political structure is the root cause of their demise cum social cutural belief (the will of Allah) and religion.
they have an aristocratic system that does not allow middle class. i'll say its a lugardian style.
the elite does not beleive in the common man.

Who is to say which structure is best?

Every society chooses a structure that works for it.

If you go back in time before the arrival of Europeans, most African societies didn't have widespread poverty.

Most of the ills in Nigerian society came with the forced union of differing cultures and structure of government.

We didn't have widespread poverty?

So poverty came with contact with the Europeans?

Evidence for this?

How are you defining "poverty", anyways?

Anyway, for those who are claiming that things would be relatively fine in the North...if you are fine with Niger Republic, Chad Republic standard of living, then sure.

But if you aspire for more, then no.

Katsumoto:

Who is to say which structure is best?

Every society chooses a structure that works for it.

If you go back in time before the arrival of Europeans, most African societies didn't have widespread poverty.

Most of the ills in Nigerian society came with the forced union of differing cultures and structure of government.

You know what, .....if there's a Nobel prize in the "enlightened mind" category, Katsumoto should win it.

You wrote a four or five sentence response and answered thousands of mind warping inquiries on humanities in Africa. You are badd!

Make i Laff.Why e dey worry una pass any Northerner?Why not allow us take the panadol.Na una go ask, complain and answer.I believe a separation will give the north all required motivation to build herself.The same way i want the resource control to happen!

Katsumoto:

Who is to say which structure is best?

Every society chooses a structure that works for it.

If you go back in time before the arrival of Europeans, most African societies didn't have widespread poverty.

Most of the ills in Nigerian society came with the forced union of differing cultures and structure of government.

Wisdom.Everyone get potential.What we lack is vision and adoption of a workable system to manage our ills than focus mainly on pleasing the international demands.

ekt_bear: We didn't have widespread poverty?

So poverty came with contact with the Europeans?

Evidence for this?

How are you defining "poverty", anyways?

_bear,

I know where this question will lead and i believe sincerely that you have raised a point that will generate lerning. May i suggest that you and katz defer and have this taken up as part of dialigue in the moderated debate that Jarus is developing?

ekt_bear: Anyway, for those who are claiming that things would be relatively fine in the North...if you are fine with Niger Republic, Chad Republic standard of living, then sure.

But if you aspire for more, then no.

You are looking at a wealth index only and ignoring other important ones.

I prefer one in which members of a society determine the benchmarks to be used within that society regardless of benchmarks in other places.

That is why I don't consider those 'primitive' societies in the Amazon jungle or close to papau new guinea as primitive.

You choose what works for you and I choose what works for me.

ekt_bear: We didn't have widespread poverty?

So poverty came with contact with the Europeans?

Evidence for this?

How are you defining "poverty", anyways?

There are many written reports about war, disease, literacy as defined by Europeans, way of life, system of government but nothing on poverty.

You know why, African society regulated itself.

Well, 95% of Nigerians would prefer to be wealthy like the US, Singapore, Europe, etc, rather than these obscure tribes in the Amazon rain forest, or some hunter-gathering society in southern Africa.

I doubt that the OP meant this in his post, for example.

It makes sense to measure prosperity, progress, wealth by a standard the overwhelming majority believe in, rather than you and a minority.

Katsumoto:

There are many written reports about war, disease, literacy as defined by Europeans, way of life, system of government but nothing on poverty.

You know why, African society regulated itself.

Or...everyone lived lives comparable to the poor in Europe. I.e., limited access to food, low life expectancy, no money for schooling/education, spending most of your days on backbreaking labor on a farm...

The old days sucked azz and put us at a serious disadvantage when we finally started interacting with non-Africans. There is no purpose in glorifying them.

ekt_bear: Well, 95% of Nigerians would prefer to be wealthy like the US, Singapore, Europe, etc, rather than these obscure tribes in the Amazon rain forest, or some hunter-gathering society in southern Africa.

I doubt that the OP meant this in his post, for example.

It makes sense to measure prosperity, progress, wealth by a standard the overwhelming majority believe in, rather than you and a minority.

Hahahaha

That's an exaggeration right there. 95% maybe if Northerners account for only 5%. But we know that's not true.

Like I said, I admire the Northern attitude to life. When a man is content with was he has been blessed with, he is happy.

On the hand, those who chase wealth all the days of their lives, like most Americans do, can not be as happy as a man who is content even if he lives in a hut, shares a meal with his kids and neighbours before retiring for the night with one of his 5 wives (joke )