selemempe:
u know something bro....tho am Igbo and may speak from an angle of the 'majority tribes' the truth is the 3 region system left by the british....infact the entire system left by the british is (still is) the best system for Nigeria to develope.

U have to understand that these guys have done it b4. They were the europeans who moved to the americas and turned canada, u.s, mexico, brazil and argentina into the wonderful nations they are today. In u.s for instance, there were local tribes...but they were forced to become englishmen. Even tho europe was multilingual, the u.s adopted only english as everybody's mothertongue. That means french and german ppl moving to u.s must learn english.

Take india too as example...most speak hindi today. However most did not speak hindi 500 years ago...but today there is more cohesion in india, in america etc as a result of the one language/culture policy.

Many Nigerians who would leave the shore of nigeria to say america will 4get everything about their nigerian language and culture in just 50 years and bcom full americans. Is adopting the american language and culture better for say a tiv man than adopting the hausa language and culture while in nigeria?

We would have had just 3 nations within nigeria if the british system was not disrupted. Today we have maybe 10 nations...all thinking in different directions.

Believe me..had the coup of 66 not occured and had gowon not created those first 12 states, this is how i belive nigeria would have been;

1. PH in eastern region will be as developed as lagos.
2. Lagos would not be over crowded and it would still be fct.
3. Ibadan will be much more developed than it is today
4. Benin city would be much more developed and populated than it is today
5. Kaduna will look the way abuja looks now
6. Kano will be much more developed than it is today
7. There would be no abuja.
8. Most ppl in north would speak hausa, most in east will speak igbo, and most in midwest will speak either benin or igbo
9. Minority ppl would be bilingual.
10. Boko haram, heardesmen crisis and nd militancy would not arise

Yes you are correct.
Nigeria would have been more uniform if we had continued with the original 3 regions. However this uniformity would have been at the expense of the complete sacrifice of the identity of we the minorities.

Igbonization and Yorubanization of the Southern minorities would have easily worked, but complete hausanization of northern minorities would never have worked cos Hausa culture has been syncretized with islam and many northern minorities are christians.
Religious crisis would have never let the region unite and sooner or later it would have gone in flames.

I would have loved a more uniform Nigeria divided into three. However, the 3 regions would have been so distinct and different. Regional affiliations would have far superceded the national ones. We would have hardly done anything together cos for instance, our entertainment industries for instance, would have been different which would largely reduce their influences and market.

As a minority I think I prefer the first 12 states had remained and had full autonomy.


About India, most Indians in the cities speak Hindi in all the states except Tamil Nadu, but most Indians do not speak Hindi overall. Most Indians speak their state official languages like Bengali, Punjabi, Malayalam, Telugu, Tamil, Marathi, Odisha, etc
However I understand your point. Hindi as the national language and a co-official language of India has heavily promoted inter-ethnic communication.

fratermathy:
The Politics of Majority and Minority Cultures in Nigeria

Ass. Prof. Etop Akwang of the Department of Theatre Arts, University of Uyo, said something which I think many should know, especially those from the so-called "minority groups". A Doctoral candidate was undergoing his internal oral examination and in his work, he kept making reference to the fact that the Ogoni people are a minority group and he "implied" that his work, which was an analysis of Ogoni's traditional theatre, is a minor work as opposed to what obtains in the so-called "majority groups".

Dr. Akwang was of the opinion that the labels of "minority" and "majority" ethnic groups is a misnomer as all cultures are living cultures and do not obtain legitimacy from others. The UNESCO made a declaration on cultural diversity to which Nigeria is signatory and in that declaration, it was emphasised that all cultures are distinct, independent, and not superior to others. Many of the nations that signed this declaration made observable changes in their policies by removing the clauses that made some groups major and others minor based on demographic strengths. The rationale for this removal was that all cultures, even if with only a few persons, are unique and should not be subsumed under others.

Nigerian leaders are yet to ratify the UNESCO declaration of cultural diversity in the Nigerian constitution more than 15 years after it was signed. Nigeria's case is quite unique. With over 250 ethnic groups and distinct cultures, the country, in its colonial imagination, decided to make just three groups, out of over 250, as major cultures and relegated the others to minority statuses. The danger of this system is felt more on the psyche of the people from the so-called minority groups. As someone from a minority group myself, it seems as if I am a guest in my own nation. My group, the Urhobos, have contributed a lot to Nigeria and we have little or nothing to show for it. We don't even have a unique state to call ours despite our numerous calls. Many of the proposals for development and cultural preservation that are sent to the government usually end up in the thrash because we are not really seen as important people but this contrasts with the efforts made to preserve and recognise the so-called majority groups.This is the sentiment of over 50million Nigerians from diverse so-called minority groups. The nation propagates the falsehood that some groups are more important than others and their languages should therefore be taught in schools, propagated by government, and have hegemonic powers at the expense of other groups. This system is totally disturbing. It should be noted that the idea of cultural minority is not the same with that of racial minority as used in the United States and other multiracial nations. In multiracial societies, cultures are not regarded as minorities but racial pigmentation and even though I have reservations for this concept too, it is much better than the concept of cultural minority which we employ in Nigeria.

Dr. Akwang went further to assert why his ethnic group, the Ibibio, is not more or less important than the three so-called majority groups. He advised against the usage of the word - "minority" - in describing ethnicities that were unlucky to be included as "majorities" in Nigeria. That word psychologically affects those from the groups so labelled even without their knowledge. It creates a mental barrier between the people and the rest of the nation. It is not a word that should be in use in contemporary times. Even in other countries with multiple ethnicities like Nigeria, all the groups are regarded as equals regardless of numerical strengths (which do not translate into cultural importance over others). There is also the tendency, as I have observed myself, for those from the so-called majority groups and foreigners to treat the so-called minorities as appendages, subgroups, dialects, etc, of the so-called majorities.

To all those from the so-called minority groups in Nigeria: be not dismayed. You are unique and distinct in your rights. No group is better than yours. Even though the system propagates marginalisation and inequality, regard yourselves as important as any other. Do your best to preserve your culture. Be proud to speak your language and express your worldview. May what you lack in sheer numerical strength be made up for in cultural nationalism and identity. Above all, do your best to resist the usage of the word - minority - in describing you or your ethnicity.

To those from the so-called majority groups in Nigeria: it is not your fault that some Nigerian leaders decided to propagate a falsity that segregates cultures along numerical lines without regard for their distinctiveness. You can help by making those from the so-called minorities feel welcome and appreciated. Do not impose your culture or language on others. Do your best to help preserve dying cultures that have been so plagued by minority consciousness . Do not look down on others because your culture is regarded as a majority by a flawed system. Advocate against the usage of the words - majority and minority - when used to refer to living cultures.

To the government and policy makers: do your best to revisit the part of the constitution that makes some groups major and others minor. There is no justification for such clause in the 21st century. Each of the more than 250 cultural units in Nigeria is as important and as major as the other in their own rights. Make them feel like they are a part of the nation by removing psychological distance via minority consciousness. It won't be perfect and it will not solve all our problems but it will certainly be a starting point.

ALL CULTURES ARE LIVING CULTURES AND ARE NOT MORE OR LESS IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS.
- Iroro Orhero

Even among the minorities they still play the majority -minority game. In Rivers state, Ikwere plays the majority part. In South SOuth as a region, Ijaw plays the majority part. This trickles down to our villages so your point does not hold water. There will always be majority-minority game. Tell yourself this bitter truth and move on. Stop lying to yourself pls/

bibe:


You made some valid points but that wasn't exactly so. Historically, the Igbo and most other ethnicities in the Eastern region shared a lot in common. Eg killing of twins, the ekpe cult (Aro Confederacy+cross riverians) etc. There's always been mutual respect generally.

Enugu was chosen as capital just same way Abuja was chosen as capital and Lagos before it. Enugu was Igbo through and through so no issues of minorities being subsumed there. English was the ligua franca as obtains in Abuja and Lagos (while it was the capital). Knowledge of the language of the natives doesn't mean being subsumed but helps with communicating with the locals.

Like I said before the provincial system was adopted to ensure representation and even spread development most of which are still visible in the various states of today. Enugu and Port Harcourt experienced more rapid development due to coal (which held same value as oil of today) the rail from enugu to ph as well as the ph port and city came to be as a result of coal.

Revenue was mostly shared according to what you contributed. Abia, Anambra and present day Akwa ibom got more of the largesse on account of Palm oil revenue (you can research the economy of southern Nigeria before independence) so sometimes I don't really understand the cries about marginalisation. It's akin to crying that present day Rivers, Akwa ibom and bayelsa are marginalising the South East states on account of their crude oil revenue (13% derivation).

If you do a proper research on the economy of the Eastern region you'll understand that the issue of marginalisation is unfounded however you can already see from the analysis above that the economy was largely tilted to the igbos as at then and their numbers ultimately meant they'll dominate politically (numbers and money).

In conclusion, the system that obtained in the Eastern region was radically different to that of the northern region where there was clearly an agenda thus the issue of igbonisation is not plausible.

You are correct. The east never had an agenda of subsuming the minorities like the north did. However, ethnic absorption does not always happen intentionally. It could also happen unintentionally.

Learning the language of the locals of a city of course in not an issue.
However, when more and more minorities who migrate to the city of the majority for the sake of better opportunities due to that city being a capital city or economic centre of that region which of course would be dominated by the majority, then it becomes kind of unfair, because indirect or unconscious cultural absorption would take place.

For instance, why did Kano hausa dialect become the official hausa dialect and lingua franca dialect of the north? Why not Sokoto dialect? Simple, because Kano was the largest city and economic centre of Hausa land and the north.
Today, you see all the Hausas and even non hausa in Kano claiming to be from Kano state just cos they were born there or have lived there many years, but many of them were not from Kano originally. Some of these people leave Kano back to their places of origin and take back Kano culture and influence to their places of origin and gradual Hausanization/Kanonization takes place in these smaller towns and communities.

This would have still been the likely outcome in the old eastern region. Gradual and non conscious Igbonization would have still taken place.

selemempe:
no need to argue...a northerner has already told u how it is in the north...take it or leave it...not my headache any prove of this? So northerners felt marginalised and started killing igbo? Pls in wat way did they feel marginalised? Show me believeable article about this ur post

Ive maintained from beginning of this thread that it needs to remain clean. So there is no need to post derailing articles but you can reference Sultan of Sokoto's address in Enugu last year where he remarked on the motive for killing Igbos. You can also date back to Sardauna's audio/video recording in 64 and reasons he gave for despising Igbo. I dont say things here that cannot be backed with facts. I am not one to intimidate with request for articles and sources....i walk the talk!


Who is the northerner that said he cant differentiate Yoruba......a Hausa/Fulani Northerner or a Northern Igbo?

The bottom line we have majority/minority classes is for purpose of administration, period!

The colonialists wanted a central heirarchy that will serve as a proxy chain for Top to Bottom delivery of authority and Bottom to Top conduit for social issues.

Before they got here how were those issues in society managed?

Were there authorities in place or no?

Who were the authorities and who reported to them?

Has those relationships changed today?

In what form, positively or negatively?

BabaRamota1980:
Some of the discussions you guys are having, though your inputs clearly are intellectual, but its on the surface and failed to go deep into history of the peoples involved and the geo-political markers that existed pre colonial period. Nigeria is a post colonial state.

For instance you look at a place like Kaduna. Kaduna state is Gwariland, not Hausaland. The state itself, like Enugu are creations of Colonialists.

What was Kaduna before? What kingdom was ruler over the Gwaris? Did they have their kings or were they ruled by Chiefdoms that pay tributes to a superior king? Its all significant to understand the pre-Nigeria relationship between different nations.

No please, the entire Kaduna state is not Gwari land. If you had said Kaduna city is gwari land, you would have been correct.
Unfortunately Hausas have stolen a large chunk of Kaduna city from the Gwaris.

Northern Kaduna (Zaria or Zazzau) has always been an ancient Hausa kingdom and is purely hausa land.

Gbagyi (Gwari) people dominated central Kaduna state along with some other tribes, while kaduna south belongs to the Atyaps, Bajju, Gong, Agworok, Jaba, Ninkyob and many others

Nowenuse:


No please, the entire Kaduna state is not Gwari land. If you had said Kaduna city is gwari land, you would have been correct.
Unfortunately Hausas have stolen a large chunk of Kaduna city from the Gwaris.

Northern Kaduna (Zaria or Zazzau) has always been an ancient Hausa kingdom and is purely hausa land.

Gbagyi (Gwari) people dominated central Kaduna state along with some other tribes, while kaduna south belongs to the Atyaps, Bajju, Gong, Agworok, Jaba, Ninkyob and many others

West Africa was an estate of Imperial powers who drew tributes from lesser authorities. Who did Gwari paid tribute to before Kaduna was created?

Nwadiuto247:


Even among the minorities they still play the majority -minority game. In Rivers state, Ikwere plays the majority part. In South SOuth as a region, Ijaw plays the majority part. This trickles down to our villages so your point does not hold water. There will always be majority-minority game. Tell yourself this bitter truth and move on. Stop lying to yourself pls/

This is the very sad truth!

Take for instance, we Benue-Plateau people were very happy when we got our own state as minorities free from Hausa in 1967.
But immediately we Plateau people started dominating the state and Benue people cried of marginalization.

Benue people got their own state 9 years later and the Tivs and Idomas dominated the Igalas who were brought from WestCentral state.
Igalas left Benue to Kogi state in 1992 and Tivs started feasting on the Idomas.... Idomas have been crying of marginalization since then.
Perhaps when the Idomas get their own Apa state, Igedes and Agatus will also cry of marginalization from the greater Idoma tribe. ... In fact, they are already crying, cos only Idomas produce the senator of Benue south.
It's just pathetic.

BabaRamota1980:


West Africa was an estate of Imperial powers who drew tributes from lesser authorities. Who did Gwari paid tribute to before Kaduna was created?

Gbagyis and most southern Kadunas just like Plateaus paid tributes to no one. They were never under anyone.

Hausas and fulanis tried to conquer the tribes but they failed.

From my understanding, individual tribes under the old Empires retained their nationhood or tribal identity, even when a bigger authority served as their overlord. This is why it was possible for smaller tributaries to overthrow Empires. The relationship that an Empire had over a tributary was strictly for economic gains and military ranks....but the tributary retained its identity as a culture. In exchange for taxes sent to the Emperor and contributions of men into the army, the tributary in return enjoyed security from enemy invasion.

There was no majority/minority until white man came and started the crap.

Nowenuse:


Gbagyis and most southern Kadunas just like Plateaus paid tributes to no one. They were never under anyone.

Hausas and fulanis tried to conquer the tribes but they failed.

Okay. So if many attempts to subjugate them before colonial did not succeed, what stops them now from reliving history and snatching their independence?

Sometimes we will not have academic answers to solve mundane challenges, pure native sense and brute force has its purpose in the evolution of mankind. The aggression of slaughter will only be stopped by a greater slaughter, nothing less.

Nowenuse:


This is the very sad truth!

Take for instance, we Benue-Plateau people were very happy when we got our own state as minorities free from Hausa in 1967.
But immediately we Plateau people started dominating the state and Benue people cried of marginalization.

Benue people got their own state 9 years later and the Tivs and Idomas dominated the Igalas who were brought from WestCentral state.
Igalas left Benue to Kogi state in 1992 and Tivs started feasting on the Idomas.... Idomas have been crying of marginalization since then.
Perhaps when the Idomas get their own Apa state, Igedes and Agatus will also cry of marginalization from the greater Idoma tribe. ... In fact, they are already crying, cos only Idomas produce the senator of Benue south.
It's just pathetic.

Very interesting.

Some cultures were not customarily heirarchic in traditional structure. There are many cultures like this in Nigeria. Some others had been practicing central heirarchy even before England was a nation.

When the English came and imposed central heirarchy it traumatized some cultures who now were forced into second class positions behind cultures that were at one time an arch enemy. There was no balance but there was competition. The effect of that is what we still see till today.


Cultures that preferred non-centricity should be allowed a practice of their culture and customs according to their native beliefs. Those who love a central power should also do their government their own way.

Thats easier said than done! Its a long way from what we currently have to what i porpose above. The bridge between the points is a restructuring of the Nigerian system.

BabaRamota1980:


Okay. So if many attempts to subjugate them before colonial did not succeed, what stops them now from reliving history and snatching their independence?

Sometimes we will not have academic answers to solve mundane challenges, pure native sense and brute force has its purpose in the evolution of mankind. The aggression of slaughter will only be stopped by a greater slaughter, nothing less.

I don't understand what you mean by them snatching their independence. Are they under colonization?

They only happen to be under a state and a country politically dominated by Hausas which does not work to their favour.

Nowenuse:



Yes you are correct.
Nigeria would have been more uniform if we had continued with the original 3 regions. However this uniformity would have been at the expense of the complete sacrifice of the identity of we the minorities.

Igbonization and Yorubanization of the Southern minorities would have easily worked, but complete hausanization of northern minorities would never have worked cos Hausa culture has been syncretized with islam and many northern minorities are christians.
Religious crisis would have never let the region unite and sooner or later it would have gone in flames.

I would have loved a more uniform Nigeria divided into three. However, the 3 regions would have been so distinct and different. Regional affiliations would have far superceded the national ones. We would have hardly done anything together cos for instance, our entertainment industries for instance, would have been different which would largely reduce their influences and market.

As a minority I think I prefer the first 12 states had remained and had full autonomy.


About India, most Indians in the cities speak Hindi in all the states except Tamil Nadu, but most Indians do not speak Hindi overall. Most Indians speak their state official languages like Bengali, Punjabi, Malayalam, Telugu, Tamil, Marathi, Odisha, etc
However I understand your point. Hindi as the national language and a co-official language of India has heavily promoted inter-ethnic communication.

About the bolded, I beg to differ. I believe lagos as fct would have been a more uniting force than it is today and than abuja will ever be.
Lagos was planned by the british while abuja was planned by fulani. Lagos as fct would not be the yoruba state that yorubas and tinubu are trying to force it to be and it would not have that islamic look that abuja has.

It would have been the cultural epi-center of africa...a role adis ababa is currently playing

Nowenuse:


You are correct. The east never had an agenda of subsuming the minorities like the north did. However, ethnic absorption does not always happen intentionally. It could also happen unintentionally.

Learning the language of the locals of a city of course in not an issue.
However, when more and more minorities who migrate to the city of the majority for the sake of better opportunities due to that city being a capital city or economic centre of that region which of course would be dominated by the majority, then it becomes kind of unfair, because indirect or unconscious cultural absorption would take place.

For instance, why did Kano hausa dialect become the official hausa dialect and lingua franca dialect of the north? Why not Sokoto dialect? Simple, because Kano was the largest city and economic centre of Hausa land and the north.
Today, you see all the Hausas and even non hausa in Kano claiming to be from Kano state just cos they were born there or have lived there many years, but many of them were not from Kano originally. Some of these people leave Kano back to their places of origin and take back Kano culture and influence to their places of origin and gradual Hausanization/Kanonization takes place in these smaller towns and communities.

This would have still been the likely outcome in the old eastern region. Gradual and non conscious Igbonization would have still taken place.

The issue of lingua franca is more complicated than that. For example the French you speak today and even the French speak was from a particular region in France same with the English speakers of today (you can do a little research on this).

Sometimes it's done intentionally for cohesion purposes. For example since there were too many Igbo dialects, a commission was set up to come up with a central Igbo language for cohesion reasons. it's the igbo you will largely hear people speak today.

As for gradual and unintentional subsuming that could be possible. The point you raised about Kano dialect subsuming other hausa dialects (and even other hausa people) also happened in the West (#lagos). A lot of people today also claim Lagos ancestory. It's a normal immigration consequence and has been happening since the beginning of time. However, it's more likely to happen to people of similar stock.

For example the igbo will always leave for their Homeland at any possible opportunity and have not lost their language on account of being in Lagos or in Abuja. It's actually the fault of parents most times when the contrary obtains. But nonetheless, every nation most have a capital and with it immigration and other consequent outcome as you have pointed out.

People will always continue to migrate for economic reasons but it doesn't necessarily mean they become subsumed. Igbos are in the North, East, West and South but they aren't subsumed yet and may never be, same with the hausa in the West or East or the Yoruba in the North, East or SS. The Jews too never lost their identity, same with the native Americans etc.

Nwadiuto247:


Even among the minorities they still play the majority -minority game. In Rivers state, Ikwere plays the majority part. In South SOuth as a region, Ijaw plays the majority part. This trickles down to our villages so your point does not hold water. There will always be majority-minority game. Tell yourself this bitter truth and move on. Stop lying to yourself pls/

You have not addressed the issues I raised. That minorities are playing majorities is not the issue. You seem to misconstrue my post as an outcry against marginalisation and that is incorrect. True, I have raised some issues that bother on that but the main issue is the recognition of minority groups as cultural cognates with the majorities. That is the thrust of the article and please limit your analysis to that.

selemempe:
About the bolded, I beg to differ. I believe lagos as fct would have been a more uniting force than it is today and than abuja will ever be.
Lagos was planned by the british while abuja was planned by fulani. Lagos as fct would not be the yoruba state that yorubas and tinubu are trying to force it to be and it would not have that islamic look that abuja has.

It would have been the cultural epi-center of africa...a role adis ababa is currently playing

No, I don't think so.

During the regional govt, cities like Ibadan, PH & Kaduna were making great strides and development as much or almost as much as Lagos was.
I haven't really heard of any northerner or middlebelter who was interested to move to Lagos as at that time. Kaduna was the perfect migration destination followed by Kano.

Look at India, how well has Delhi united Indians?

State capitals like Mumbai are far more powerful than Delhi. Others like Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata can even challenge Delhi too and are far more cosmopolitan than Delhi.

If the states or regions are large in size and are powerful by controlling their own rescources, the state capitals will definitely outcompete the Federal capital.

Nowenuse:


No, I don't think so.

During the regional govt, cities like Ibadan, PH & Kaduna were making great strides and development as much or almost as much as Lagos was.
I haven't really heard of any northerner or middlebelter who was interested to move to Lagos as at that time. Kaduna was the perfect migration destination followed by Kano.

Look at India, how well has Delhi united Indians?

State capitals like Mumbai are far more powerful than Delhi. Others like Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata can even challenge Delhi too and are far more cosmopolitan than Delhi.

If the states or regions are large in size and are powerful by controlling their own rescources, the state capitals will definitely outcompete the Federal capital.

yea...i see wat u mean. Washinton dc is another example. But truth is a developed ibadan, ph and kaduna is better for nigeria than the current arrangement

bibe:


The issue of lingua franca is more complicated than that. For example the French you speak today and even the French speak was from a particular region in France same with the English speakers of today (you can do a little research on this).

Sometimes it's done intentionally for cohesion purposes. For example since there were too many Igbo dialects, a commission was set up to come up with a central Igbo language for cohesion reasons. it's the igbo you will largely hear people speak today.

As for gradual and unintentional subsuming that could be possible. The point you raised about Kano dialect subsuming other hausa dialects (and even other hausa people) also happened in the West (#lagos). A lot of people today also claim Lagos ancestory. It's a normal immigration consequence and has been happening since the beginning of time. However, it's more likely to happen to people of similar stock.

For example the igbo will always leave for their Homeland at any possible opportunity and have not lost their language on account of being in Lagos or in Abuja. It's actually the fault of parents most times when the contrary obtains. But nonetheless, every nation most have a capital and with it immigration and other consequent outcome as you have pointed out.

People will always continue to migrate for economic reasons but it doesn't necessarily mean they become subsumed. Igbos are in the North, East, West and South but they aren't subsumed yet and may never be, same with the hausa in the West or East or the Yoruba in the North, East or SS. The Jews too never lost their identity, same with the native Americans etc.

Yes you are correct, but using Igbos (a very large tribe) as a case study here is not fair.
Igbos cannot be easily influenced due to their large size.
And Igbos migrate to different areas and even outside the country.

I am talking about minority groups with most of their population migrating towards a particular majority area over a long period of time.

Take the Nupes for instance. Nupe culture is far more related to Yoruba culture than Hausa, but over the years due to so much migration to Hausa land and mixing, their culture is becoming more Hausanized. So many of them can now speak Hausa even in their homelands, but in the past it was not so.
For Nupes and Baribas in Kwara, their shift is more or less towards yoruba because they have been looking up to Ilorin for a long time.

Let me also use Idomas as an example.
Idomas originally are neighbors to Igbos and share far more in common with Igbos in all ramifications than lets say a Plateau person, but through my years in Warri (a southern city) I find more Idomas who can speak Hausa
than those who cannot. I haven't found one who can speak Igbo. Why?
For a longtime, the destiny of Idomas were tied to Hausa speakers, from Kaduna their regional capital to Jos their state capital and these made many of them migrate to those cities in droves.

These hausa speaking Idomas see me and my family for instance as more of their kit and kin here in Warri than they see Igbos, in spite of the fact that some of their hometowns are just a stone throw from Enugu state.
Now, tell me, If Benue state had been under the Eastern region and the eastern region existed till now and the majority of them migrated to Enugu instead, would this have been the case?

This Idoma shift to the north has heavily reduced since the creation of Abuja and Makurdi also started offering them more opportunities as it became bigger. Otherwise, Imagine if Benue-Plateau state or northern region had continued, by now we would have had like half of the entire Idoma population in Jos or Kaduna (cos Idomas love migration a lot) and Idomas who share bloodlines with Igbos, a large chunk or the majority of them would now be speaking hausa and would start seeing a Plateau man as their kin compared to an Igbo man.

If you cannot get my point with this, then I think I have to give up explaining anything else.

The Jews you are talking about, did they not loose their language over time? Jews managed to resurrect their language and much of their cultures due to their powerful history and how much they documented it, not because they retained all of it during their exile.

Can't you see the striking differences between the Ashkenazic Jews and the Sephardic Jews? The Israel of today is more European by outlook and lifestyle. Save for the Sephardic jews and Arabs in Israel, how middle-eastern do these Ashkenazic jews look to you?

The sephardic jews are more or less a better representation of what the original jews were because they never left the middle-east. But because the Ashkenazic jews dominate Israel, western elements are stronger in Israel. Hence, Israel of today clearly has a more European outlook than a middle-eastern one.

Efewestern:


They should learn from Southern minorities and how we fought so hard to have our separate identity, left for these major Ethnic groups, they just want to lump every small ethnic group into their fold, Read about the plight of Southern minorities In the 1960's regional government.

Most northern minorities are fast loosing their identities and the federal government is doing nothing about this.

How many times have the northern minorities carried out a campaign to distinguish themselves from hausa/fulani ?, Down south we do that every single day.

Your fight will not change a thing! Over the years, stronger culture eventually swallow the little ones...empires rise and fall, nations change over time.
Please save yourself the stress of identifying yourself with a tribe or culture that will not survive the next century.
Note: Nothing like I am a pure Yoruba, Hausa, or Igbo cos overtime our DNA has evolved due to migration and marriage. Nobody is a pure breed!! We all belong to the human race.

selemempe:
yea...i see wat u mean. Washinton dc is another example. But truth is a developed ibadan, ph and kaduna is better for nigeria than the current arrangement

Yes I agree with you, it would have been better for our livelihoods and for the sake of an even development.

However do you know that much of the influence Nigeria has today in Africa like our entertainment and media industries might have not existed?
We would have had less millionaires and billionaires perhaps cos some regions would have boycotted the products of other regions. We would hardly have a single market.

Take Nairaland for instance, someone like me might hardly have an interest here cos I would have preferred a Hausa language forum with more northerners. This forum might be more yoruba since it is owned by a Yoruba person.
Topics of yoruba celebrities or western regional govt which will dominate here would be of no interest to northerners and easterners hence less traffic and less money for Seun.

The importance of a large single homogenous market can never be underestimated. This is what America enjoys and the reason it somewhat has a greater influence over the world.

Nowenuse:


Yes you are correct, but using Igbos (a very large tribe) as a case study here is not fair.
Igbos cannot be easily influenced due to their large size.
And Igbos migrate to different areas and even outside the country.

I am talking about minority groups with most of their population migrating towards a particular majority area over a long period of time.

Take the Nupes for instance. Nupe culture is far more related to Yoruba culture than Hausa, but over the years due to so much migration to Hausa land and mixing, their culture is becoming more Hausanized. So many of them can now speak Hausa even in their homelands, but in the past it was not so.
For Nupes and Baribas in Kwara, their shift is more or less towards yoruba because they have been looking up to Ilorin for a long time.

Let me also use Idomas as an example.
Idomas originally are neighbors to Igbos and share far more in common with Igbos in all ramifications than lets say a Plateau person, but through my years in Warri (a southern city) I find more Idomas who can speak Hausa
than those who cannot. I haven't found one who can speak Igbo. Why?
For a longtime, the destiny of Idomas were tied to Hausa speakers, from Kaduna their regional capital to Jos their state capital and these made many of them migrate to those cities in droves.

These hausa speaking Idomas see me and my family for instance as more of their kit and kin here in Warri than they see Igbos, in spite of the fact that some of their hometowns are just a stone throw from Enugu state.
Now, tell me, If Benue state had been under the Eastern region and the eastern region existed till now and the majority of them migrated to Enugu instead, would this have been the case?

This Idoma shift to the north has heavily reduced since the creation of Abuja and Makurdi also started offering them more opportunities as it became bigger. Otherwise, Imagine if Benue-Plateau state or northern region had continued, by now we would have had like half of the entire Idoma population in Jos or Kaduna (cos Idomas love migration a lot) and Idomas who share bloodlines with Igbos, a large chunk or the majority of them would now be speaking hausa and would start seeing a Plateau man as their kin compared to an Igbo man.

If you cannot get my point with this, then I think I have to give up explaining anything else.

The Jews you are talking about, did they not loose their language over time? Jews managed to resurrect their language and much of their cultures due to their powerful history and how much they documented it, not because they retained all of it during their exile.

Can't you see the striking differences between the Ashkenazic Jews and the Sephardic Jews? The Israel of today is more European by outlook and lifestyle. Save for the Sephardic jews and Arabs in Israel, how middle-eastern do these Ashkenazic jews look to you?

The sephardic jews are more or less a better representation of what the original jews were because they never left the middle-east. But because the Ashkenazic jews dominate Israel, western elements are stronger in Israel. Hence, Israel of today clearly has a more European outlook than a middle-eastern one.

I actually do get your perspective. I do. You are looking at it from language, association and long term effects angle which is understandable.

Remember I said initially that I don't buy the tag of minority/majority. This is because regardless of the numbers, the pride in cultural identity will always prevail.

Yes the idomas are closer to us geographically but their historical migratory route shows northern origin. They initially identitlfied with igbos for "survival".

My point is that them speaking hausa will never erase their identity as idoma, they'll always preserve and cherish it. That's my perspective. So long as they don't permanently settle outside their lands of origin, subsumption won't occur.

Again the system plays an important role too in the politics of minority/majority as I mentioned before.

But you do have your points and I agree with some of them.

@Nowenuse: You are a thorough intellectual and I've been enjoying your discourse on this thread. It's always a pleasure to read your comments.

In your opinion, do you think that Nigeria would be better if the minority cultures get subsumed under the majorities? What are your thoughts?

Kaduna State Government orders Chiefs of Southern Kaduna to rebrand themselves as Emirs.

fratermathy:
@Nowenuse: You are a thorough intellectual and I've been enjoying your discourse on this thread. It's always a pleasure to read your comments.

In your opinion, do you think that Nigeria would be better if the minority cultures get subsumed under the majorities? What are your thoughts?

Thank you very much for the compliments. I actually consider myself a learner before the presence of people like you.

Personally, I'd say I have heavily mixed feelings about the issue of minorities being subsumed under majorities cos I know that either options come with their pros and cons.

Let me give you an example and you tell me what you think of it. The tribes of Southern/Central Bauchi and Plateau state used to be the same people in the past, we shared a lot of things in common, cultures, origins, languages, trade and many things.
Bauchi people being closer to the core-north accepted Islam and with it came gradual hausanization which was cemented through colonial policies.
Today as I speak with you, the majority of these Bauchi tribes and Hausas can no longer be differentiated anymore. The majority of our people who know very little of the past relationship now sadly see and even address these Bauchi people as Hausas.
The Bauchi people on their path seem very ok and satisfied with their new identity, as of course with it comes better opportunities for them in Nigeria as they can now identify as a majority group. They of course do not face the kind of challenges and fears christians or minorities face in the north. They are welcomed all over the north with open arms and receive the same privilege as every Hausa person all over Nigeria.

It would be easier for a hausanized Bauchi person to be president in Nigeria than a Plateau person. They now most likely have the audience and support of over 60 million northern muslims and even Hausas beyond Nigeria.
Their children would feel prouder to be among and identify with one of the largest and most influential ethnic groups in Africa.
I have muslim cousins for instance and as usual, they too are becoming hausanized. They no longer answer our tribal names and no longer speak our native language except for Hausa. Because of this, one of my cousins applied for a scholarship purely meant for Katsina people alone and she got it and is being paid a good sum of money every year as she schools.
Once you have a pure muslim name and speak hausa fluently, you are accepted in any part of Hausa-fulani land as an equal.
For someone like me, I can never get that opportunity to apply for such a thing outside Plateau state, but my hausanized cousins have access to apply for such in more than 15 states.

I must admit that people from smaller identities have more to gain by identifying with larger identities. However at the same time they also carry the problems of these larger identities.
These hausanized Bauchi people will also carry the problems of Hausa-fulanis like higher poverty levels, illiteracy, almajiri, child marriage etc.

I might say it is such a shame for these people to loose their ancestral language and cultures, but what difference does my shaming them make? Does it really have any effect on them? Does it stop them from breathing?

Overtime, smaller identities have been absorbed to larger ones all over the world through conquest or other means.

Most countries of the world try their possible best to unify their countries either with the language and culture of the majority group or an older regional language that has been the lingua franca of the region before the country.

In India for instance, there are thousands of ethnic groups. It would be too cumbersome for every ethnic group to have a representation at the central government.
What their government did many years back was to select ethnic groups with at least tens of millions of people and grant them a state of their own. Only the north-Eastern Indian minorities got more states due to the complexity and uniqueness of their region.
Every other minority was forced to identify with the majority ethnic group of their new state because only around 12 ethnic groups met the requirement in size to get their own state. As a minority, it is up to your state govt to cater for your needs.
Overtime, these minorities continue to be subsumed.

In spite of this, the central government is now still trying to unite the entire country with one language (Hindi). This has heavily worked in northern India because of how related their ethnic groups and languages are to Hindi, but it met very stiff opposition in the South. However, overall, it is gradually working, cos Hindi language is now penetrating the South.

98% of China identify as ethnic Han chinese, in spite of how unrelated their languages and origins are. Many Han Chinese languages have 0% mutual intelligibility to each other, however they still identify as one people. The central government chose the language of Beijing to be the official language and all others are mandated to learn it. This has led to very large languages like Shanghainese with about 90 million speakers (together with it's cultures) to be on the threat of extinction.

Look at Europe, their founding fathers definitely knew that multi ethnicity would not be possible or healthy for national developments.
Save for Belgium and Switzerland, every other European country has been 'mono-ethnicized'. Even the UK that appears multi-ethnic is overwhelmingly dominated by the English culture and language.

Many European countries like Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, etc have minority groups too. However, everyone is expected to acculturate to the dominant group. It has worked over time.
For instance, many Bretons, Provencals and Strasbourg people now identify as ethnic French today, but a few generations back it was not so. They have completely distinct and unrelated languages and cultures to mainstream French.

I am yet to see any large or progressive nation which promotes multi-ethnicity without having one of it's language and culture as the dominant force in the country which all others are expected to conform to, except all the independent ethnic groups would be granted a form of self government/autonomy like in the cases of Belgium & Switzerland.

Tanzania remains one of the most peaceful largely populated multi-ethnic nations in Africa. Ethnic politics, bitterness, rivalry, tribalism and cries of marginalization is non-existent in that country. This was because Julius Nyerere heavily unified the entire country under one Swahili language and culture by banning the use and promotion of native languages.
The majority of Tanzanians have lost their ancestral languages and cultures and now have only Swahili, but the kind of peace and unity enjoyed in Tanzania is one that countries like Nigeria, Kenya, Congo, Ethiopia can only dream of.

All these points and more are the reasons for my mixed feelings about your question.

Although overall, I would say, it would be better for Nigeria to drastically reduce the subject of ethnicity and perhaps implement and promote a single official language and culture to unite the entire country, rather than some ethnic groups subsuming others, but I definitely know that this would be near impossible at this point of our existence.