Rossinnki:
.
.
There were no ethnic groups in Nigeria prior to the colonial era.

There was nothing like a Yoruba man.

Or a Hausa man.

Or an Igbo man.

That way of identifying people simply did not exist.

Message to secessionists:

Biafra is NOT your father's history.

Even the name Biafra is Portuguese.

There was no sense of Igbo nationhood prior to the colonial era.

So the whole 'Biafra' concept - the very concept of there being an ''Igbo people'' is European-originated, oriented, and influenced.

Your ''Igbo identity'' is a Tokunbo notion, every bit as foreign as your average, dodgy 2nd-hand junk.

Prior to the colonial era, the fact that you spoke the same language as another person did not mean you were of the same ''ethnic group'', different from those who spoke a different language.

That simply was NOT how we viewed ourselves in AFRICA.

Kinship and group identity were about blood connection and lineage, which transcended languages spoken, and often involved various languages existing within the same kinship group caused inter alia, by migration and inter-marriage.

In pre-colonial times, you were not ''an Igbo person''. You were a person who spoke Igbo language. Finish.

What identified you was your clan and your village or town, and your lineage therein, not the language you spoke.

There were Igbo-speaking groups who knew their cousins that spoke Yoruba or Edo a 100 miles away, and were closer to them by lineage than to Igbo-speaking communities even in the next town.

That is how we were. It wasn't about the language you spoke.

Today, out of European-influenced modern triibalism, we find previously connected people and communities now separating themselves by language, and denying ancestral links with those who merely speak a different language.

ALL OF THAT IS COLONIAL-INFLUENCED.

If you don't know your history, let us, your elders tell you your history.

Every person who hates another because they are supposedly of a ''different ethnic group'' is acting out the playbook written by 18th century European colonizers who came here to divide and conquer, and is NOT following in the ways of our fathers.

Thank You.

utter bull..shi..t

I stopped reading when said you start talking trash about Igbo identity bla bla bla...

You lack knowledge to discuss how a people should be grouped or are grouped.

What is on display here is the inability to reason in an unintelligent individual who is very opinionated

Let us examine the proposition that Yoruba identity did not exist before Nigeria
Even if that were to be the case does that mean there was no other identity?
No
There were Ijebus,Ekiti, Egba,Ondo,Ijesha,Igbomina and so on.
They had kings and Kingdoms
Can you have a Kingdom without identity?
They had their own monarchies and systems of succession.
The Ijebu e.g. do not circumcise their women
The Oyo have their own tribal marks very distinct from Ondos


Among the Igbos there were Aros and Ngwas among others with a very strong sense of identity
Or is it the Ijaw or the Urhobo that do not know who they are?
This is just Nigeria
We are not talking of Zulus,Kikuyus,or Mandingoes

How anyone in their right senses can say ethnic identification is unAfrican is shocking

The slave trade lasted centuries. People raided and sold OTHERS as slaves for generations

0m0nnakoda:
What is on display here is the inability to reason in an unintelligent individual who is very opinionated

Let us examine the proposition that Yoruba identity did not exist before Nigeria
Even if that were to be the case does that mean there was no other identity?
No
There were Ijebus,Ekiti, Egba,Ondo,Ijesha,Igbomina and so on.
They had kings and Kingdoms
Can you have a Kingdom without identity?
They had their own monarchies and systems of succession.
The Ijebu e.g. do not circumcise their women
The Oyo have their own tribal marks very distinct from Ondos


Among the Igbos there were Aros and Ngwas among others with a very strong sense of identity
Or is it the Ijaw or the Urhobo that do not know who they are?
This is just Nigeria
We are not talking of Zulus,Kikuyus,or Mandingoes

How anyone in their right senses can say ethnic identification is unAfrican is shocking

The slave trade lasted centuries. People raided and sold OTHERS as slaves for generations

it's very shocking. I don't know what the OP is smoking really

Rossinnki, fooling himself as usual and drowning himself with self-delusion.

SciLab:
Rossinnki, fooling himself as usual and drowning himself with self-delusion.

A wannabe intellectual who has no one to tell him the bitter truth that he is a dullard

The chicken comes first before the egg?
The language came first before the people?
Language is a veritable Weapon of Time to reach any Target.
Language is therefore a Tribe, Time, Delay and Speed to getting anywhere.
The SPIRIT of God demonstrated this at The Tower of Babel.

ODUDUWA AND YORUBA CAME FROM THE TOWER OF BABEL AND THEY'RE AFRICAN.
YORUBA IS THE TRIBE AND LANGUAGE.

This rosicky of a .guy should be apprehended and used as a human sacrifice at the okpolokoevi shrine

0m0nnakoda:
What is on display here is the inability to reason in an unintelligent individual who is very opinionated

Let us examine the proposition that Yoruba identity did not exist before Nigeria
Even if that were to be the case does that mean there was no other identity?
No
There were Ijebus,Ekiti, Egba,Ondo,Ijesha,Igbomina and so on.
They had kings and Kingdoms
Can you have a Kingdom without identity?
They had their own monarchies and systems of succession.
The Ijebu e.g. do not circumcise their women
The Oyo have their own tribal marks very distinct from Ondos


Among the Igbos there were Aros and Ngwas among others with a very strong sense of identity
Or is it the Ijaw or the Urhobo that do not know who they are?
This is just Nigeria
We are not talking of Zulus,Kikuyus,or Mandingoes

How anyone in their right senses can say ethnic identification is unAfrican is shocking

The slave trade lasted centuries. People raided and sold OTHERS as slaves for generations

Why are you so dumb? When the hell did I say there was ''no other identity'' outside the artificial ''Yoruba'' identity? Or claim that people ''did not know who they were''?

Don't put your stupid lying words in my mouth and then seek to argue against what I did not say.

It was PRECISELY my point that Identity was based on LINEAGE and such organic factors, and not on shared language, something you've proceeded to prove by mentioning the above legitimate pre-colonial identity groupings, and then claimed I was saying they didn't exist!!!

Maybe it's your low IQ that's bothering you. Or maybe you're actually a fraud.

Again: My ENTIRE point in this whole thread is that pre-colonial Nigerians identified themselves according to those lineage-based groupings you mentioned, eg, ''Ijebus, Ekiti, Egba, Ondo, Ijesha, Igbomina'' etc, and NOT as ''Yorubas'', or ''Igbos'' or ''Hausas'' etc etc, which are artificial, language-based, colonialist-created identity blocs.

Good grief..

0m0nnakoda:
A wannabe intellectual who has no one to tell him the bitter truth that he is a dullard

Sure. Pea brain. Don't shut your lips and learn what is being discussed first before criticising.

henryobinna:
utter bull..shi..t

I stopped reading when said you start talking trash about Igbo identity bla bla bla...

You lack knowledge to discuss how a people should be grouped or are grouped.

Errr....It is actually not rocket science. It is your low intelligence and mental laziness that prevents you from grasping a pretty easy concept. Go back to playing Naira Marley and dancing Zanku and leave history and genetics out of your sphere.

If you are looking for proof that ethnicities were political creation, come to Nigeria.

They forget that Regions and States were recent creations.

If Yoruba and Benin can disown one another, what do you expect from the rest of Nigerians?

Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba can be mixed together and you get variety of colors named ethnic groups.

Keep on fooling yourselves that British brought you together.

maiunguwar:
This rosicky of a .guy should be apprehended and used as a human sacrifice at the okpolokoevi shrine

We understand. That is your primitive barbarity showing itself. Dumb, air-head spear chucker.

What is even more colonial is the concept of 'Nigeria'. The same crap you are defending .

At least, the word Igbo existed before colonialism eg Igboukwu, lots of places in Igbo land are called AmaIgbo, names like Igbokwe, Igboaja, etc. And phrases like Olu na Igbo.
Now, can you tell us the place of Nigeria in our history ?

Rossinnki:


Why are you so dumb? When the hell did I say there was ''no other identity'' outside the artificial ''Yoruba'' identity? Or claim that people ''did not know who they were''?

Don't put your stupid lying words in my mouth and then seek to argue against what I did not say.

It was PRECISELY my point that Identity was based on LINEAGE and such organic factors, and not on shared language, something you've proceeded to prove by mentioning the above legitimate pre-colonial identity groupings, and then claimed I was saying they didn't exist!!!

Maybe it's your low IQ that's bothering you. Or maybe you're actually a fraud.

Again: My ENTIRE point in this whole thread is that pre-colonial Nigerians identified themselves according to those lineage-based groupings you mentioned, eg, ''Ijebus, Ekiti, Egba, Ondo, Ijesha, Igbomina'' etc, and NOT as ''Yorubas'', or ''Igbos'' or ''Hausas'' etc etc, which are artificial, language-based, colonialist created identity blocs.

Good grief..

In that case, of makes sense for Ondo people to agitate for secession. But even at that folks like you will still bring reasons to say no to such no matter what. At least , the groups you mentioned up there share a lot of things in common so it's not out of place for them to have an ethnicity. What is worse is the actual countries created by the Europeans that you are defending .

InyinyaAgbaOku:
What is even more colonial is the concept of 'Nigeria'. The same crap you are defending .

At least, the word Igbo existed before colonialism eg Igboukwu, lots of places in Igbo land are called AmaIgbo, names like Igbokwe, Igboaja, etc. And phrases like Olu na Igbo.
Now, can you tell us the place of Nigeria in our history ?

We all know Nigeria is a colonial construct. The point is, even if we break up Nigeria, there is no basis for doing so along our present 'ethnic' lines of 'Igbo', 'Yoruba', Hausa', etc, since those are not legitimate pre-colonial identity groupings.

It also means that current hatreds and rivalries that are based on those artificial identity blocs are colonially derived and should be discarded.

InyinyaAgbaOku:


In that case, of makes sense for Ondo people to agitate for secession. But even at that folks like you will still bring reasons to say no to such no matter what. At least , the groups you mentioned up there share a lot of things in common so it's not out of place for them to have an ethnicity. What is worse is the actual countries created by the Europeans that you are defending .

But NOTHING in our past suggests that language-based ethnic groupings will work. The most bloody and frequent warring was done WITHIN those same language groupings. The Yoruba civil wars were horrendous. The Igbo-speaking chiefdoms operated as independent countries. When diplomacy broke down in a crisis with another community speaking the same Igbo, war broke out. With huge casualties!

So, on what basis are you now saying that there is an ''ethnic group'' called Igbo?

Or one called Yoruba?

They are colonial creations.

There are people we classify today as 'Edo people', whose ancestors fought against the Benin Kingdom in many wars! But courtesy of British colonialism, they are now classified, based on the fact they speak one language, as ''the Edo people''. One people! One ''ethnic group''. They are not! And never saw themselves as such. All they ever were were ''Edo-speaking peoples'', not ''Edo people''. Same applies to so-called ''Igbo people'', ''Yorubas'', ''Hausas'', etc etc. All colonial creations.

Now that we see that language-based ethnic groupings are artificial, and that breaking up into such groups offers no guarantee of stability or progress in the new nations, why don't we do the opposite?

Simply remain as Nigerians.

Go bigger instead of going smaller.

Sure, Nigeria is a colonial creation, but it's operating no worse than our old, warring, lineage-based fiefdoms did. Those systems did succumb to slavery and colonialism after all, showing their inherent structural weakness.

Nigeria has more potential to create the mass of wealth and collective ingenuity needed to propel us all to the next level, plus the centralized system of administrative control needed to visualize and actualize that reality.

There also needs to be a national policy of DELETING language-based ethnicity from our consciousness. No more ''Igbos'', or ''Yorubas'', or ''Hausas'', or ''Hausa-Fulani'' (an absurd, ultra-colonialist nonsense).

ALL traditional loyalties and affinities will be based on lineage and nothing else. Just like it was in the days of our fathers.

After 10 - 15 years of teaching this new, TRUE paradigm to our people, tribalism and disunity will be eliminated from our shores, fostering true equality of every person in this country.

This policy of 'de-ethnicization' is not as far-fetched as it may sound to some.

Rwanda is doing something very similar. And their country today is the 2nd fastest growing economy in the world.

.

Beachside:

I will keep busting your bubble. You are easy.
Rwanda is 90 percent Hutu .There's negligible difference between Hutu and Tutsi. And Rwanda landmass is the same size as Cross river state. Singapore landmass is same size as Eket Town or Onitsha town . Those nations would be shitholes if part of Congo or Malyasia.
Fast developing countries like Botswana(Tswana land),Namibia and Rwanda are ethno states. And who ever said all ethnic nations being autonomous states within a confederation is not real unity and independence ? I think you are from an Igbo community considered inferior , that's why you feel a need to dissolve people's heritage. Do you think Scottish,Lithuanian,Swedes ,Norwegian,and Irish should give up their ethnicity for a fictitious entity?
Nigeria is a failed state with a bleak future, inhabited by toads like you. I think people like you should have your status stripped and deported back to your shithole.

It is more than easy to point out a handful of successes in a sea of failure, when naming successful small states. Singapore. Why not Cambodia? Nepal? Laos? Myanmar? Yemen? Sri Lanka? That is the real level of that region. Singapore was chosen by western powers to be the capitalist financial centre it is, and funded/supported accordingly. That is why it is different from its aforementioned neighbours.

Same as Africa. Rwanda and Botswana are exceptions in a sea of small state paralysis, as seen in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Burundi, Benin Republic, Chad, Gambia, Burkina Faso, Togo...

So statistically, each of the newly balkanized states of a broken up Nigeria would have around a 10% chance of success. And a 90% chance of joining the above list of unviable entities.

Here's a study on the benefits of a LARGE country compared to SMALL

What are the benefits of having a large size? First, the per capita costs of
many public goods are lower in larger countries, where more taxpayers can pay
for them. Think, for instance, of defense, a monetary and financial system, a
judicial system, infrastructure for communication, police and crime prevention,
public health, embassies, and national parks just to name a few.

In many cases, parts of the costs of public goods are independent of the number of users/tax
payers, or grow less than proportionally, thus the per capita costs of many public
goods is declining with the number of taxpayers. Alesina and Wacziarg (1998)
document that the share of governments spending over GDP is decreasing with
GDP; that is, smaller countries have larger governments, even after controlling
for several other determinants of government size.

Second, a larger country (in terms of population and national product) is
less subject to foreign aggression. Thus, safety is a public good that increases
with country size. Also, related to the “size of government” argument here,
smaller countries may have to spend proportionally more for defense than larger
countries given the economies of scale in defense spending.

Empirically the relationship between country size and share of spending of defense is affected
by the fact that small countries can enter into military alliances, but in general,
size brings about more safety.

In addition, if a small country enters a military coalition with a larger one, the latter may provide defense, but it may extract
some form of compensation, direct or indirect, from the smaller partner.

Third, the size of the country affects the size of their markets. To the extent
that larger economies and larger market increase productivity, then larger
counties should be richer. In fact, a large literature on “endogenous growth”
emphasizes the benefits of scale. Fourth, large countries can provide “insurance”
to their regions....''

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6e88/5141c31dbcb9083a19e3cd3d223fe70fdd45.pdf

siereleone ,Liberia,Myanmar,Nepal, are all colonial entities and third world shitholes like Nigeria. Botswana(Tswana land ) is an ethno state like Japan ,South Korea, Lithuania,Netherlands,etc.

Botswana is every bit a colonial entity as any of those other nations. Its borders are not of the original Tswana people, who only constitute the majority in Botswana, not the entire population, which has another 5 or so language groups added by the British to form ''Botswana''.

Oh, and Burundi is 85% Hutu.

Almost fully mono-ethnic.

Why are they not like Singapore or even Rwanda?

Burkina Faso is 52% Mossi. 6 other groups number between 1% and 8% each.

This is similar to what a 'Biafran Republic' would look like demographically.

Burkina Faso, despite this near ethnic homogeneity, has seen very little progress as a nation.

This by far is the dumbest post I have seen in recent times on Nairaland. To even think that he tried to articulate garbage and sell it off as an intellectual piece is mind boggling. How do you as an African, believe in a contraption that was created solely for business? Do you even think your interest were captured when merging a highly unproductive and less educated North with a progressive and highly educated south? Some times it is bizarre how the mind of some people work in this day and age. Like someone wrote above, the best bet is to create states based of similar ethnic groups and with their different flags. If along the line these countries have a need to merge or form an alliance with others, it is all well and good. No Nation should be forced to be with people who don't share cultural values with them.its that simple

NimrodEndOfDays:
This by far is the dumbest post I have seen in recent times on Nairaland. To even think that he tried to articulate garbage and sell it off as an intellectual piece is mind boggling. How do you as an African, believe in a contraption that was created solely for business? Do you even think your interest were captured when merging a highly unproductive and less educated North with a progressive and highly educated south? Some times it is bizarre how the mind of some people work in this day and age. Like someone wrote above, the best bet is to create states based of similar ethnic groups and with their different flags. If along the line these countries have a need to merge or form an alliance with others, it is all well and good. No Nation should be forced to be with people who don't share cultural values with them.its that simple

Do you realise that southerners and northerners traded for millennia before the colonial era?

The fact that MILLIONS of Igbos are settled peacefully and profitably in the NORTH today, is a direct REBUKE of your claim that there is this huge, unbridgeable cultural gulf between the north and south.

It's another colonial-created myth. You still see them as an ethnic bloc. As ''Hausas'' etc.

That's why you have that stereotype about them. About their collective.

In a de-ethnicized nation, you would not see them as one bloc, but would simply address the specific trouble spots in question, say Bornu.

Or Hadeija.

Or Zaria.

Your mind wouldn't go ''Northerners!', or worse, ''these Hausa-Fulani people!

Rossinnki:


Do you realise that southerners and northerners traded for millennia before the colonial era?

The fact that MILLIONS of Igbos are settled peacefully and profitably in the NORTH today, is a direct REBUKE of your claim that there is this huge, unbridgeable cultural gulf between the north and south.

It's another colonial-created myth. You still see them as a bloc. As ''Hausas'' etc.

That's why you have that stereotype about them. About their collective.

I don't bear any grudge with no tribe. But I will if that tribe is determined to suppress my cultural identity and quest for a way of life that suits me or my tribe. We can be trade partners and friends from afar. We don't necessarily have to be country men. How can the North always be at the helms of leadership when they cannot even provide basic education for their people?

NimrodEndOfDays:
I don't bear any grudge with no tribe. But I will if that tribe is determined to suppress my cultural identity and quest for a way of life that suits me or my tribe. We can be trade partners and friends from afar. We don't necessarily have to be country men.

More colonialist ''ethnic group'' thinking.

''My tribe''. ''Your tribe''.

All rubbish.

There is no ''tribe'' looking to ''suppress [your] cultural identity and quest for a way of life...''.

There may be an oligarchy of people numbering a few hundred who happen to speak Hausa, who do have such nefarious intents. But HOW does that translate to being the wishes of 60 million Hausa speakers in the country?

Do you think the average 'Hausa man' walks around thinking he must suppress 'Igbos' from having ''their'' way of life?

I put it to you that 99.99% of 'Hausas' do not give a second's thought to whatever happens to you or your ''way of life''.

But Ethnicization, which leads to TRIBALISM, makes you think they do.

That is why language-based ethnic group-ism is so poisonous and alien to us.

It makes you stereotype and hate whole groups of people, who have absolutely NOTHING to do with anything troubling you. People who would be perfectly nice and helpful individuals who would be hospitable to you if you ever encountered them, in true African tradition.

Tribalism makes you coat ALL those people - millions of them - with one negative brush.

Tragic.

The true African way of identifying external threats is by focusing on the actual perpetrators (lineage) of whatever evil you identify, (in this case, the oligarchy members) NOT by concluding that all the people who speak the same language as the perpetrators are in a conspiracy against you!

How can the North always be at the helms of leadership when they cannot even provide basic education for their people?

How are ''the North'' always at the helm of leadership? Jonathan was in power for 5 years before Buhari was elected. OBJ was in power for many years before that. What are you talking about? Buhari is in power now but won't be there forever. Nigeria is a democracy.

Rossinnki:


Why are you so dumb? When the hell did I say there was ''no other identity'' outside the artificial ''Yoruba'' identity? Or claim that people ''did not know who they were''?

Don't put your stupid lying words in my mouth and then seek to argue against what I did not say.

It was PRECISELY my point that Identity was based on LINEAGE and such organic factors, and not on shared language, something you've proceeded to prove by mentioning the above legitimate pre-colonial identity groupings, and then claimed I was saying they didn't exist!!!

Maybe it's your low IQ that's bothering you. Or maybe you're actually a fraud.

Again: My ENTIRE point in this whole thread is that pre-colonial Nigerians identified themselves according to those lineage-based groupings you mentioned, eg, ''Ijebus, Ekiti, Egba, Ondo, Ijesha, Igbomina'' etc, and NOT as ''Yorubas'', or ''Igbos'' or ''Hausas'' etc etc, which are artificial, language-based, colonialist-created identity blocs.

Good grief..

You are an intellectual lightweight with an inflated sense of yourself.
Make up your mind are you talking of Nigeria or Africa
All over the world and throughout history identities have changed and been created under the influence of internal and external forces whether it be the US or Pakistan.
Ekiti was not a " lineage" but a kingdom,ditto for Ijebus or Edos.
If that evolves into new groupings in Nigeria how is that unAfrican?
The same thing happened all over the world throughout history under different influences.
The modern nation state as we know it evolved from tiny groups which coalesced by force and other influences
The role of jihad in the Middle East,the Roman Empire,Christianity etc is well documented

Before England was United under one monarch who happened to be of French origin there were numerous kingdoms in Mercia, Sussex etc who were AngloSaxon eventually they were absorbed.
Are we to say then when large states started to emerge like France,Germany etc that they were unEuropean?
Even the English were Germanic in origin as are the Dutch,Flemish, Austrians and many other

Peoples are forced to form larger groups when their neighbours do the same.
Failure to do so leads to extinction.
Man has always done business as sole traders but when the time came the firm emerged,the multinational arrived.
Even companies merge to survive

The subject you raise is interesting and one we have discussed to advanced degrees on nairaland. The truth is you lack the capacity to discuss the issue because you are not an intellectual rather you are opinionated and lack the ability to think critically or objectively

Rossinnki:


But NOTHING in our past suggests that language-based ethnic groupings will work. The most bloody and frequent warring was done WITHIN those same language groupings. The Yoruba civil wars were horrendous. The Igbo-speaking chiefdoms operated as independent countries. When diplomacy broke down in a crisis with another community speaking the same Igbo, war broke out. With huge casualties!

So, on what basis are you now saying that there is an ''ethnic group'' called Igbo?

Or one called Yoruba?

They are colonial creations.

There are people we classify today as 'Edo people', whose ancestors fought against the Benin Kingdom in many wars! But courtesy of British colonialism, they are now classified, based on the fact they speak one language, as ''the Edo people''. One people! One ''ethnic group''. They are not! And never saw themselves as such. All they ever were were ''Edo-speaking peoples'', not ''Edo people''. Same applies to so-called ''Igbo people'', ''Yorubas'', ''Hausas'', etc etc. All colonial creations.

Nigeria is the biggest colonial construct. It is more colonial than Igbo , a word that existed before colonialism. We want that one and understand it better, it's still less bloodier than the unworkable union you are fighting for . You don't use a colonial construct to defend another . That's my point.

And if we decide to form countries as Nnewi, Nkanu, etc , people like you will want to say otherwise.

Rossinnki:


We all know Nigeria is a colonial construct. The point is, even if we break up Nigeria, there is no basis for doing so along our present 'ethnic' lines of 'Igbo', 'Yoruba', Hausa', etc, since those are not legitimate pre-colonial identity groupings.

It also means that current hatreds and rivalries that are based on those artificial identity blocs are colonially derived and should be discarded.

Not true. It is not the colonials that told me I have more in common with Nsukka, Nnewi than Oyo or Hausa. Back in the days , people know where similarities in customs stopped.

Rossinnki:


More colonialist ''ethnic group'' thinking.

''My tribe''. ''Your tribe''.

All rubbish.

There is no ''tribe'' looking to ''suppress [your] cultural identity and quest for a way of life...''.

There may be an oligarchy of people numbering a few hundred who happen to speak Hausa, who do have such nefarious intents. But HOW does that translate to being the wishes of 60 million Hausa speakers in the country?

Do you think the average 'Hausa man' walks around thinking he must suppress 'Igbos' from having ''their'' way of life?

I put it to you that 99.99% of 'Hausas' do not give a second's thought to whatever happens to you or your ''way of life''.

But Ethnicization, which leads to TRIBALISM, makes you think they do.

That is why language-based ethnic group-ism is so poisonous and alien to us.

It makes you stereotype and hate whole groups of people, who have absolutely NOTHING to do with anything troubling you. People who would be perfectly nice and helpful individuals who would be hospitable to you if you ever encountered them, in true African tradition.

Tribalism makes you coat ALL those people - millions of them - with one negative brush.

Tragic.

The true African way of identifying external threats is by focusing on the actual perpetrators (lineage) of whatever evil you identify, (in this case, the oligarchy members) NOT by concluding that all the people who speak the same language as the perpetrators are in a conspiracy to ruin you!



How are ''the North'' always at the helm of leadership? Jonathan was in power for 5 years before Buhari was elected. OBJ was in power for many years before that. What are you talking about? Buhari is in power now but won't be there forever. Nigeria is a democracy.

I don't get this your talk. No matter what you do, people would only identity with their own people. Stop making us believe that Africans are bereft of ideas and probably incapable of thinking for themselves. With your thought process it seems like you have created an artificial complex that shows only low self esteem. Africans have a choice of who to associate with and how they want their destinies to be. I don't know where you are from but I think it would be in your best interest to include just your people in this your deluded fantasy. Europe is a continent of different ethnic Nationalities. They are not compressed into one entity like animals in a zoo. You cannot create an artificial Nation like Nigeria without chaos. Learn from the Europeans and stop imposing your low level thoughts and ideas on people obviously know better than you. Writing long epistle will not change the Natural law of likes attracting likes.

Long and short of this post is that it is completely useless. Doesn't make sense and never will. Just a bunch of crap written by someone who definitely has fluctuations of irrelevant and inconsequential ideas that make little or no meaning in real life.

Rossinnki:


We all know Nigeria is a colonial construct. The point is, even if we break up Nigeria, there is no basis for doing so along our present 'ethnic' lines of 'Igbo', 'Yoruba', Hausa', etc, since those are not legitimate pre-colonial identity groupings.

It also means that current hatreds and rivalries that are based on those artificial identity blocs are colonially derived and should be discarded.

Using words like " construct" is a baptism rite into the intelligentsia?
Consensus, forward looking consensus is the basis for any merger or demerging for any break up or agglomeration in the future.
There is no manual but history is quite instructive tribes come and go like the proverbial soldier and the barrack are always teeming

ALL identity blocks are artificial. None is grounded in biology/DNA .
None was legislated by God

Rossinnki:


If Biafra is about ''Igbos'' why do you keep adding the Delta region to your phantom map?

Surely it's not because of their multi-billion dollar oil deposits?

Methinks you are manipulating the imported 'tribe' concept for oil and gas - based ambitions.

When they joined us to form Eastern region there was no oil then maybe they joined us because of the coal in Enugu. But we accepted them without oil. My friend, you as a typical Nigerian never think beyond oil and gas.