₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,295,042 members, 5,041,470 topics. Date: Wednesday, 17 July 2019 at 07:41 AM

A Burning National Question - Politics - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / A Burning National Question (796 Views)

National Question And Restructuring As Unsettled Matters / A Deltan’s Response To The National Question / The National Question (2) (3) (4)

(1) (Reply) (Go Down)

A Burning National Question by Jinad50: 12:54am On Jun 13
In my time spent on social media, I have witness great controversies that ensued in the media space over the Nigeria/Biafra war. There have been rivalry from different quarters of the country in a bid to hang the blame on one tribe. Some political pundit believes the controversies is as a result of people being ill informed and they also suggested that if educated caution is not taken, what happened in Nigeria during the period of 1967 to 1970 is highly likely go to happen again. Some have advocated for the need of the Nigeria/Biafra war to be taught in schools. The bigger ask here is, whose account of the story about the war should be taught? is it that of the Biafrans or that of Nigerians?. I ask this questions because I have read the accounts of prominent Igbo figures, who were core witnesses of the war; in person of Chinue Achebe, Alexander Madiebo and other notable personalities of Igbo extraction. I have also had the fortune to hear some of the accounts of some Nigerian sympathizers and unfortunately the accounts from both quarters are in conflict with each other. The various account from both quarters, in my opinion are coloured with tribal sentiment or what sociologist call ethnocentrism. Some of the accounts from the international community are also coloured with political sentiment. UK for example, supported Nigeria during the war because of their interest in Nigeria and the West Africa sub region. France on the other hand, believed Biafrans had a justifiable reason to fight, even though they did not openly declare their support for Biafra for political reasons. Surprisingly, the United State were neutral during the war. Its safe to say they were passive with the truth and chose to stay on the fence, in order not "offend" any of the Waring party. This I can say, is also for political reasons. Since it seem impossible, or better still, difficult to get the truth of what transpired before, during and after the war from either Nigeria, Biafra or the international community, where do we seek the truth from?. This has become a burden to many a person because if we must teach the younger generation about the Nigeria/Biafra war, then we must teach nothing but the truth, in order for them to make informed decisions and avoid a reoccurrence of the bitter war. This is especially important, because the younger generation has started hating each other (tribal wise) and pointing accusing fingers at each other because of their half bake or half understood knowledge of the civil war. The burning question still remains, if we must teach the younger generation, where can the truth about the war be gotten from?. I will leave my readers to ponder over it.

1 Like

Re: A Burning National Question by wowcatty: 2:04am On Jun 13
Here we go again! This issue has been flogged to death.
Just say you want to keep bringing it up cos you know it's all ibos fault borne out greed and criminal mindedness.

Let me me shrink it to the bottom line for you once more.

Yes, there will be another war in Nigeria but that will be war for freedom, Yorubaland must be free.

When the colonists left, they left us with the regional system of govt, the kind they have in the UK because we are different nations within Nigeria with different cultures and value system. But when fulani and ibos saw how developed Yorubaland was within a short time and the fact that Awolowo was fighting for the minorities in both the north and east to have their own regions, they teamed up to put Awolowo in prison. Fulani and ibos had the agreement to share Nigeria between both of them, but fulani didn't trust the ibos, so they reneged on the agreement and ibos got angry and carried out a coup fulani leaders including those of Yoruba who had nothing to do with their problem. Fulani youths mobilized and retaliated while Yoruba youths ran to Ghana.

Few ibos with money went to banks all over Nigeria and got their money out and ran back to their region, and still looted all foreign banks in their region, reason Awolowo changed naira.

Ibos stay put in their region and declared war after 1 year, Awolowo kept allowing food to get to biafra, but biafra soldiers were the ones eating everything while the civilians grew thin and were eating themselves. Biafra soldiers committed genocide against the people of midwest and got served when they got to Yorubaland proper, Yoruba had stayed clear of the fight between two best of friends, but could not allow ibos run over Yorubaland after an Italian pilot fighting on the wide of biafra bombed Lagos.

Ibos owe Nigeriam especially Yoruba an apology but ibos keep doubling down on stupidd and rubbing salt.

Will be back.
Jinad50:

In my time spent on social media, I have witness great
controversies that ensued in the media space over the
Nigeria/Biafra war. There have been rivalry from different
quarters of the country in a bid to hang the blame on one
tribe.
Some political pundit believes the controversies is as a result
of people being ill informed and they also suggested that if
educated caution is not taken, what happened in Nigeria
during the period of 1967 to 1970 is highly likely go to
happen again.
Some have advocated for the need of the Nigeria/Biafra war
to be taught in schools. The bigger ask here is, whose
account of the story about the war should be taught? is it
that of the Biafrans or that of Nigerians?. I ask this questions
because I have read the accounts of prominent Igbo figures,
who were core witnesses of the war; in person of Chinue
Achebe, Alexander Madiebo and other notable personalities
of Igbo extraction.
I have also had the fortune to hear some of the accounts of
some Nigerian sympathizers and unfortunately the accounts
from both quarters are in conflict with each other.
The various account from both quarters, in my opinion are
coloured with tribal sentiment or what sociologist call
ethnocentrism. Some of the accounts from the international
community are also coloured with political sentiment. UK for
example, supported Nigeria during the war because of their
interest in Nigeria and the West Africa sub region.
France on the other hand, believed Biafrans had a justifiable
reason to fight, even though they did not openly declare their
support for Biafra for political reasons. Surprisingly, the
United State were neutral during the war. Its safe to say they
were passive with the truth and chose to stay on the fence,
in order not "offend" any of the Waring party. This I can say,
is also for political reasons.
Since it seem impossible, or better still, difficult to get the
truth of what transpired before, during and after the war
from either Nigeria, Biafra or the international community,
where do we seek the truth from?. This has become a
burden to many a person because if we must teach the
younger generation about the Nigeria/Biafra war, then we
must teach nothing but the truth, in order for them to make
informed decisions and avoid a reoccurrence of the bitter
war. This is especially important, because the younger
generation has started hating each other (tribal wise) and
pointing accusing fingers at each other because of their half
bake or half understood knowledge of the civil war. The
burning question still remains, if we must teach the younger
generation, where can the truth about the war be gotten
from?. I will leave my readers to ponder over it.

2 Likes

Re: A Burning National Question by Jinad50: 2:37am On Jun 13
wowcatty:
Here we go again! This issue has been flogged to death.
Just say you want to keep bringing it up cos you know it's all ibos fault borne out greed and criminal mindedness.

Let me me shrink it to the bottom line for you once more.

Yes, there will be another war in Nigeria but that will be war for freedom, Yorubaland must be free.

When the colonists left, they left us with the regional system of govt, the kind they have in the UK because we are different nations within Nigeria with different cultures and value system. But when fulani and ibos saw how developed Yorubaland was within a short time and the fact that Awolowo was fighting for the minorities in both the north and east to have their own regions, they teamed up to put Awolowo in prison. Fulani and ibos had the agreement to share Nigeria between both of them, but fulani didn't trust the ibos, so they reneged on the agreement and ibos got angry and carried out a coup fulani leaders including those of Yoruba who had nothing to do with their problem. Fulani youths mobilized and retaliated while Yoruba youths ran to Ghana.

Few ibos with money went to banks all over Nigeria and got their money out and ran back to their region, and still looted all foreign banks in their region, reason Awolowo changed naira.

Ibos stay put in their region and declared war after 1 year, Awolowo kept allowing food to get to biafra, but biafra soldiers were the ones eating everything while the civilians grew thin and were eating themselves. Biafra soldiers committed genocide against the people of midwest and got served when they got to Yorubaland proper, Yoruba had stayed clear of the fight between two best of friends, but could not allow ibos run over Yorubaland after an Italian pilot fighting on the wide of biafra bombed Lagos.

Ibos owe Nigeriam especially Yoruba an apology but ibos keep doubling down on stupidd and rubbing salt.

Will be back.
This info is new to me.
Do you think your narrative should be taught in schools?
I believe it will be inadmissible to many, especially the Igbos.
Re: A Burning National Question by Blue3k(m): 4:16am On Jun 13
The bigger ask here is, whose account of the story about the war should be taught? is it that of the Biafrans or that of Nigerians?


You give all sides of the story its that simple. How you teach history depends on the age group your talking to. Children get bare bones and highschool get the full course. History is about understanding events and placing them in proper context.

The civil war in the United States is just as contentious since alot believe in all about slavery and other believe its was mainly about taxes and states right. In order to prove your case u need 1st hand sources and documented proof. Then you cite 2nd hand sources.

Since it seem impossible, or better still, difficult to get the truth of what transpired before, during and after the war from either Nigeria, Biafra or the international community, where do we seek the truth from?

You seek truth from credible sources. You'll need mix of primary and secondary sources then analyze the events at time. These facts wont be given to you gift wrapped you need to use critical thinking see how x effects y.

PS: I dont consider this a national issue since any school is free to add this history to curriculum. I don't know any law against it. The fedeal government sets minimum standards for education.

2 Likes

Re: A Burning National Question by kingzizzy: 7:44am On Jun 13
The history of the civil war is out there for whoever is willing to put in the time and effort to get it. The internet has helped a lot.

It's not just about getting the Nigerian or Biafran side of the story but getting the story its self as transpired in the early 1960's.

The remote cause of the war

The fact that the British brought together the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba and Igbo ethnic groupings without considering if all could co-exist along with their different ideological, cultural, traditional and religious differences. When three people with very different character traits are forced to live together under one roof, it wont be long before one of them will want to get out of the house or there will be a fight.

The immediate cause of the war

After the British left in 1960, the unworkable nature of Nigeria manifested its self. Political turmoil took over the place. Daily killings, attacks, strife and violence became the norm. A group of officers stepped in to end the madness and this led to a coup, counter coup, blame game, pogrom and genocide.

In a last ditch attempt to save Nigeria from total chaos, the military leaders of the 4 Reguons met in, Aburi, Ghana to find a solution. They reached an agreement and it was signed. The agreement basically gave the Regions more powers to police themselves and control their destiny. They all returned to Nigeria and for a little while, peace returned, until the federal government under General Gowon revoked the agreement without due consultation. Not only was the agreement revoked, Gowon also announced the abolishment of the 4 Regions. This was the needle that broke the camels back. In retaliation, the Eastern consultative assembly told the Military Governor of the East, Ojukwu, that since the federal government could not keep to the agreement that was signed, he should declare the Eastern Region a separate country. Ojukwu did that and the federal government declared war.


Wars are caused by disagreement and in the case of the Biafran/Nigeria war, it was caused by the federal government of Gowon not keeping to an agreement . It is to hide the fact that the Northern backed government of Gowon caused the war is why the history of the war is not taught in schools

2 Likes

Re: A Burning National Question by Jinad50: 11:59pm On Jun 14
kingzizzy:
The history of the civil war is out there for whoever is willing to put in the time and effort to get it. The internet has helped a lot.

It's not just about getting the Nigerian or Biafran side of the story but getting the story its self as transpired in the early 1960's.

The remote cause of the war

The fact that the British brought together the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba and Igbo ethnic groupings without considering if all could co-exist along with their different ideological, cultural, traditional and religious differences. When three people with very different character traits are forced to live together under one roof, it wont be long before one of them will want to get out of the house or there will be a fight.

The immediate cause of the war

After the British left in 1960, the unworkable nature of Nigeria manifested its self. Political turmoil took over the place. Daily killings, attacks, strife and violence became the norm. A group of officers stepped in to end the madness and this led to a coup, counter coup, blame game, pogrom and genocide.

In a last ditch attempt to save Nigeria from total chaos, the military leaders of the 4 Reguons met in, Aburi, Ghana to find a solution. They reached an agreement and it was signed. The agreement basically gave the Regions more powers to police themselves and control their destiny. They all returned to Nigeria and for a little while, peace returned, until the federal government under General Gowon revoked the agreement without due consultation. Not only was the agreement revoked, Gowon also announced the abolishment of the 4 Regions. This was the needle that broke the camels back. In retaliation, the Eastern consultative assembly told the Military Governor of the East, Ojukwu, that since the federal government could not keep to the agreement that was signed, he should declare the Eastern Region a separate country. Ojukwu did that and the federal government declared war.


Wars are caused by disagreement and in the case of the Biafran/Nigeria war, it was caused by the federal government of Gowon not keeping to an agreement . It is to hide the fact that the Northern backed government of Gowon caused the war is why the history of the war is not taught in schools
With all due respect. From what I gathered, Gowon did not revoke the agreement, he only delayed it for what I believe to be political reason. Ojukwu became furious and inpatient, and decided to cease ties from Nigeria. That move is nothing, but an act of war. Well I am not say u are wrong and I am right or vice vasa. This only lay credence to my write-up that it will be difficult to teach this subject in schools.
Re: A Burning National Question by Blue3k(m): 12:38am On Jun 15
Jinad50:
With all due respect. From what I gathered, Gowon did not revoke the agreement, he only delayed it for what I believe to be political reason. Ojukwu became furious and inpatient, and decided to cease ties from Nigeria. That move is nothing, but an act of war. Well I am not say u are wrong and I am right or vice vasa. This only lay credence to my write-up that it will be difficult to teach this subject in schools.

You know there's already history books on the subject. I studied about the war in my AP World history class in highschool. Textbooks source their facts from sources I mentioned before. The figures from war are alive today and most of the documents should still be available assuming the aren't classified still.

There should also be historians in Nigerian universities all over country with peer reviewed papers. If you go to the college libraries or talk to department heads they can point you in right direction. Alot of professors are happy to discuss these topics during office hours.

1 Like

Re: A Burning National Question by MetaPhysical: 12:59am On Jun 15
Jinad50:

In my time spent on social media, I have witness great
controversies that ensued in the media space over the
Nigeria/Biafra war. There have been rivalry from different
quarters of the country in a bid to hang the blame on one
tribe.
Some political pundit believes the controversies is as a result
of people being ill informed and they also suggested that if
educated caution is not taken, what happened in Nigeria
during the period of 1967 to 1970 is highly likely go to
happen again.
Some have advocated for the need of the Nigeria/Biafra war
to be taught in schools. The bigger ask here is, whose
account of the story about the war should be taught? is it
that of the Biafrans or that of Nigerians?. I ask this questions
because I have read the accounts of prominent Igbo figures,
who were core witnesses of the war; in person of Chinue
Achebe, Alexander Madiebo and other notable personalities
of Igbo extraction.
I have also had the fortune to hear some of the accounts of
some Nigerian sympathizers and unfortunately the accounts
from both quarters are in conflict with each other.
The various account from both quarters, in my opinion are
coloured with tribal sentiment or what sociologist call
ethnocentrism. Some of the accounts from the international
community are also coloured with political sentiment. UK for
example, supported Nigeria during the war because of their
interest in Nigeria and the West Africa sub region.
France on the other hand, believed Biafrans had a justifiable
reason to fight, even though they did not openly declare their
support for Biafra for political reasons. Surprisingly, the
United State were neutral during the war. Its safe to say they
were passive with the truth and chose to stay on the fence,
in order not "offend" any of the Waring party. This I can say,
is also for political reasons.
Since it seem impossible, or better still, difficult to get the
truth of what transpired before, during and after the war
from either Nigeria, Biafra or the international community,
where do we seek the truth from?. This has become a
burden to many a person because if we must teach the
younger generation about the Nigeria/Biafra war, then we
must teach nothing but the truth, in order for them to make
informed decisions and avoid a reoccurrence of the bitter
war. This is especially important, because the younger
generation has started hating each other (tribal wise) and
pointing accusing fingers at each other because of their half
bake or half understood knowledge of the civil war. The
burning question still remains, if we must teach the younger
generation, where can the truth about the war be gotten
from?. I will leave my readers to ponder over it.

Whoever won the war own rights to the story.

1 Like

Re: A Burning National Question by immhotep: 1:04am On Jun 15
Zoogeria

Re: A Burning National Question by slimderek(m): 1:43am On Jun 15
Beautiful Read.
OP can you point me towards any unbiased book on the War?
Re: A Burning National Question by slimderek(m): 1:43am On Jun 15
MetaPhysical:


Whoever won the war own rights to the story.
No One was declared winner
Re: A Burning National Question by leofab(f): 2:50am On Jun 15
Cleovoiyance
Re: A Burning National Question by RealityShot: 3:12am On Jun 15
lol
Re: A Burning National Question by kingzizzy: 7:42am On Jun 15
Jinad50:
With all due respect. From what I gathered, Gowon did not revoke the agreement, he only delayed it for what I believe to be political reason. Ojukwu became furious and inpatient, and decided to cease ties from Nigeria. That move is nothing, but an act of war. Well I am not say u are wrong and I am right or vice vasa. This only lay credence to my write-up that it will be difficult to teach this subject in schools.

You are wrong in the above you wrote. It is not difficult to teach history. What is difficult is is having the will to teach history because it exposes the truth which some people would rather hide.

The Aburi agreement, as it is some times called, had in it that Gowon would not change the structural composition of Nigeria unless the 4 regions of the time agreed that it would be changed. In other words, the 4 Regions would be kept and if Gowon was to change them, he would have to seek the consent of all 4 Military Governors of the time.

In May 1967, Gowon, without consultation and agreement as provided for in the Aburi agreement, issued a decree in which he announced the abolishment of the 4 Regions and creation of 12 states. This act violated the Aburi agreement led to the war.

The truth about it is that the North, having grabbed power through the military, wanted total control of Nigeria. The problem they had was that Nigeria was made up of 4 semi- autonomous Regions that was hard to control. They had to break up the Regions into smaller states and strip those states of the powers the Regions had .

What the North never bargained for was that Ojukwu and Igbos would rise up to fight this act to enslave them.

1 Like

Re: A Burning National Question by orisa37: 10:50am On Jun 15
Can't you see that our current President has aggravated Nigeria Problem with Fulani Herdsmen Terrorism?

The sw, se, ss and the cs should please, I say please come together to force Buhari to grant full autonomy of Policing, Resourcing and Electioneering control to our existing 36 Constitutional States.
I believe that when this is done, every tribe shall have peace and the Country shall progress together.
Re: A Burning National Question by Jinad50: 12:04pm On Jun 15
kingzizzy:


You are wrong in the above you wrote. It is not difficult to teach history. What is difficult is is having the will to teach history because it exposes the truth which some people would rather hide.

The Aburi agreement, as it is some times called, had in it that Gowon would not change the structural composition of Nigeria unless the 4 regions of the time agreed that it would be changed. In other words, the 4 Regions would be kept and if Gowon was to change them, he would have to seek the consent of all 4 Military Governors of the time.

In May 1967, Gowon, without consultation and agreement as provided for in the Aburi agreement, issued a decree in which he announced the abolishment of the 4 Regions and creation of 12 states. This act violated the Aburi agreement led to the war.

The truth about it is that the North, having grabbed power through the military, wanted total control of Nigeria. The problem they had was that Nigeria was made up of 4 semi- autonomous Regions that was hard to control. They had to break up the Regions into smaller states and strip those states of the powers the Regions had .

What the North never bargained for was that Ojukwu and Igbos would rise up to fight this act to enslave them.
I learnt from Achebe's book(There Was A Country) that Gowon took that move to weaken secessionist sentiment when Ojukwu had made his intentions known. Gowon believed if he diced the four regions into states, Ojukwu will reconsider his stance. However, I will like to emphasized that Gowon did not reneged on the Aburi Accord agreement, he only delay the implementation of it for reasons I don't know. Ojukwu should have been patience, instead of leading millions into war.
Re: A Burning National Question by kingzizzy: 4:20pm On Jun 15
Jinad50:
I learnt from Achebe's book(There Was A Country) that Gowon took that move to weaken secessionist sentiment when Ojukwu had made his intentions known. Gowon believed if he diced the four regions into states, Ojukwu will reconsider his stance. However, I will like to emphasized that Gowon did not reneged on the Aburi Accord agreement, he only delay the implementation of it for reasons I don't know. Ojukwu should have been patience, instead of leading millions into war.

It is not possible to be a secessionist when you have not seceded anywhere. The arguement that Gowon tried to prevent Ojukwu seceding by doing the very thing that would make Ojukwu secede is laughable.

I dont know why you keep saying that Gowon did not renege on the Aburi agreement. The agreement held that Gowon would not change the Nigerian structure of 4 Regions unless the 4 Regions gave their permission through their military Governors

Gowon the broke that binding agreement by announcing that the Regions would be abolished and replaced with 12 states, without seeking the permission of anybody.
Re: A Burning National Question by Jinad50: 5:40pm On Jun 15
kingzizzy:


It is not possible to be a secessionist when you have not seceded anywhere. The arguement that Gowon tried to prevent Ojukwu seceding by doing the very thing that would make Ojukwu secede is laughable.

I dont know why you keep saying that Gowon did not renege on the Aburi agreement. The agreement held that Gowon would not change the Nigerian structure of 4 Regions unless the 4 Regions gave their permission through their military Governors

Gowon the broke that binding agreement by announcing that the Regions would be abolished and replaced with 12 states, without seeking the permission of anybody.
I am glad we are discussing this issue with an open mind.


This will help us understand the issues very well. Gowon "breach" the agreement as a result of Ojukwu's initial actions.

It was reported that Gowon did not honour the terms and conditions of the Aburi Accord on time, at least, to suit Ojukwu's timetable.



It is also important to note that, there was no specific time frame binding Gowon to implement the agreement.

This delay did not sit well with Ojukwu, so he decided to cease ties with the Federal govt of Nigeria by cutting official communications from Lagos being the Federal capital then and he also stop the remittance of funds that should have been accrued to Federal pause coming from the Eastern region.




This actions led Gowon to believe Ojukwu was on the verge of splitting the country.

In a bid to thwart Ojuku's ambition, Gowon decided to split the regions into States, so as to create "disunity" and water down the secessionist sentiment in the Eastern region and Biafra at large.



So if you say Gowon breach the Aburi Accord agreements, it is also important to state that, Ojukwu forced his hands.



Gowon had no option than to make a political move to keep Nigeria one.

Our different shades of opinions, lay credence to my post that, it will be difficult to teach this subject matter in schools without attaching sentiment to it by the teacher.
Re: A Burning National Question by Bethel4Life(f): 6:02pm On Jun 15
At the op.. If i say that ur a dunce now, u will say am insulting u

kingzizy have told u that what caused the war was because gowon reneged on the abury accord..

Let me explaio it..on may 1967.. Gowon divided naija into states..which he souldnt have done.. That was y on may 30.. Ojukwu declared biafra..

from the above.. Its clear that not only did gowon delayd.. He also broke the accord first.....
Re: A Burning National Question by kingzizzy: 11:55pm On Jun 15
Jinad50:
I am glad we are discussing this issue with an open mind.


This will help us understand the issues very well. Gowon "breach" the agreement as a result of Ojukwu's initial actions.

It was reported that Gowon did not honour the terms and conditions of the Aburi Accord on time, at least, to suit Ojukwu's timetable.



It is also important to note that, there was no specific time frame binding Gowon to implement the agreement.

This delay did not sit well with Ojukwu, so he decided to cease ties with the Federal govt of Nigeria by cutting official communications from Lagos being the Federal capital then and he also stop the remittance of funds that should have been accrued to Federal pause coming from the Eastern region.




This actions led Gowon to believe Ojukwu was on the verge of splitting the country.

In a bid to thwart Ojuku's ambition, Gowon decided to split the regions into States, so as to create "disunity" and water down the secessionist sentiment in the Eastern region and Biafra at large.



So if you say Gowon breach the Aburi Accord agreements, it is also important to state that, Ojukwu forced his hands.



Gowon had no option than to make a political move to keep Nigeria one.

Our different shades of opinions, lay credence to my post that, it will be difficult to teach this subject matter in schools without attaching sentiment to it by the teacher.

This is just making up excuses for Gowon for causing the civil war. Ojukwu never cut off communication with Gowon, not even during the civil war. Ojukwu did fly out several times for peace talks with the federal government representatives

It is true that there was bad blood between Gowon and Ojukwu on the implementation of the Aburi accord as well as royalties accruing to the Eastern Region and the federal government. However, to say that this was enough to make Gowon feel that Ojukwu was going to secede is indulging in speculation.

The fact is that Gowon had no evidence that Ojukwu was going to secede. But let's assume for a second that Gowon thought that Ojukwu would secede, there are things he could have done without touching the Aburi agreement. He could have ordered Ojukwus arrest, he could have replaced Ojukwu, he could have ordered a state of emergency in the Eastern Region. He did none of that because he had no proof of Ojukwu planning secession

Even if Gowon felt that Ojukwu was planning secession, why abolish all 4 Regions because of the problem with one Region? Does that make any sense to you? If you have a problem with one Region, you adress that Region, not abolish both the one you have a problem with and the ones you dont have any problems with.

The abolishment of the Regions by Gowon and reneging of the agreement was a calculated action of the North to dominate Nigeria. They just didn't know that Ojukwu and Igbos would fight that imposition

They won the war and went on to create 36 states. What is the result today?

The North that was one Region now has 19 states while the South that was 3 Regions has 17 states

The North that had about 35% of the National Assembly then, now has 62% while the South that had about 65% now has 38%

The Regions that kept 50% of of their tax now have '13% derivation' and resource control has long gone.

The only reason there was a civil war was that one Region, the North, wanted to control the other 3 Regions and Igbos were the only ones who had the heart to resist it and fight it

1 Like

Re: A Burning National Question by wowcatty: 2:25am On Jun 16
Will Fulani and ibos who want forced Nigeria nd removed history from school to cover tracks allow it? ibo coup dictator suspended the regional govt, lumping Yoruba with everyone. The best thing is to divide Nigeria, we are too different.

Jinad50:
This info is new to me.
Do you think your narrative should be taught in schools?
I believe it will be inadmissible to many, especially the Igbos.
Re: A Burning National Question by ablelin: 5:45am On Jun 16
While I support history to be taught in schools, aside the side of the story to tell the students, the person telling the story also matters and will have an influence on the story. Even with the same curriculum, a yoruba, igbo and hausa teacher will still teach it in a way to make his tribe the best or the innocent in all of these. I believe we can start teaching history but this may not follow for now till there is restructuring or balkanization of the country, then, everyone can teach what suits him without having to affect the feeling of anyone...

1 Like

Re: A Burning National Question by Jinad50: 10:13am On Jun 17
kingzizzy:


This is just making up excuses for Gowon for causing the civil war. Ojukwu never cut off communication with Gowon, not even during the civil war. Ojukwu did fly out several times for peace talks with the federal government representatives

It is true that there was bad blood between Gowon and Ojukwu on the implementation of the Aburi accord as well as royalties accruing to the Eastern Region and the federal government. However, to say that this was enough to make Gowon feel that Ojukwu was going to secede is indulging in speculation.

The fact is that Gowon had no evidence that Ojukwu was going to secede. But let's assume for a second that Gowon thought that Ojukwu would secede, there are things he could have done without touching the Aburi agreement. He could have ordered Ojukwus arrest, he could have replaced Ojukwu, he could have ordered a state of emergency in the Eastern Region. He did none of that because he had no proof of Ojukwu planning secession

Even if Gowon felt that Ojukwu was planning secession, why abolish all 4 Regions because of the problem with one Region? Does that make any sense to you? If you have a problem with one Region, you adress that Region, not abolish both the one you have a problem with and the ones you dont have any problems with.

The abolishment of the Regions by Gowon and reneging of the agreement was a calculated action of the North to dominate Nigeria. They just didn't know that Ojukwu and Igbos would fight that imposition

They won the war and went on to create 36 states. What is the result today?

The North that was one Region now has 19 states while the South that was 3 Regions has 17 states

The North that had about 35% of the National Assembly then, now has 62% while the South that had about 65% now has 38%

The Regions that kept 50% of of their tax now have '13% derivation' and resource control has long gone.

The only reason there was a civil war was that one Region, the North, wanted to control the other 3 Regions and Igbos were the only ones who had the heart to resist it and fight it
Fine submission u gat up there. I have done my homework in regards to this issue and I have come to the realization that the two warring parties share a blame in all of this. First of the IBO's initiated all of this by carrying out the first coup, fail to bring the coup plotters to book, fail to condemn the coup and celebrated it just to spite the victims.

On the other hand, the govt fail to protect the civilian Ibo population who were residents in the North, fail to honour the Aburi Accord to the later and breach international war practices.

It will be woefully wrong for anybody to hand the blame on one party and try to appear innocent before the world.
We should all learn from history because history is well informed and make sure there isn't reoccurrence of the ugly incidences. God bless Nigeria.

(1) (Reply)

Busola Dakolo Vs Biodun Fatoyinbo: Fani-kayode Reacts To Protest Against Pastor / Who Can Stop Obj? / Can Someone Help Bush Go Past The 30+% Approval Rating?

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2019 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 465
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.