Most of the Diasporans here live in Europe; Can you show me one multi-ethnic state in *Europe* where one group is positioned to dominate the rest that hasn't broken up?

For those who may not know, what you call *ethnic groups* in *Nigeria* are called *nations* in *Europe*.

There's nowhere in the world where the *white man* accepts domination from another *white man* in *perpetuity.*

It used to be so under the *Roman* empire and the like. *Not anymore*. The *Communists* tried it, dividing society into capitalists and proletariats, deluding themselves that ethnicity is effectively swept under the carpet, but what followed? The Communist edifices in *Czechoslovakia,* *Yugoslavia,* and the big brother, *USSR,* all collapsed, while the two *Germans* that are ethnically the same but split by *communism* vs *capitalism* were reunited. Such is the power of *ethnic nationalism.*

*Czechoslovakia* was made up of *two ethnic groups*, the *Czechs* and the *Slovakians*. Both separated peacefully on *1st January 1993.* The former is today *10.6 million* people and the latter *5.4 million.* Added together, they're not up to *Lagos*. Yet, they split for *peace.* Two masters can't be in the same house.

*Yugoslavia* in *1991* was *23.2 million*, barely more than *Lagos* population. It broke into *six countries* same year - all along ethnic lines, namely: *Bosnia* and *Herzegovina*, *Croatia,*
*Macedonia*, *Montenegro,* *Serbia* , and *Slovenia*.

Then the big brother, *USSR*. It had, at least, the following ethnic groups identified by their languages:

*Regional languages:*
*Ukrainian

*Belarusian

*Uzbek

*Kazakh

*Georgian

*Azerbaijani

*Lithuanian

*Moldavian

*Latvian

*Kyrgyz

*Tajik

*Armenian

*Turkmen

*Estonian

*Minority languages:*

*Abkhaz

*Bashkir

*Buryat

*Chechen

*Finnish

*Volga German

*Korean

*Ossetian

*Tatar

&

*various others.

Today, your fingers will not be enough to count the *number of countries* that have emerged from the *USSR.*

Sit down there and be preaching unity in Nigeria as if you're the kindest gentleman on earth while you have no solution to the genocide in *Southern Kaduna,* the illegal but officially condoned arms in the hands of killer herdsmen roaming the country, and be condemning those better informed about the fact that the country is undergoing the strains of a *forced union* and should be *peacefully restructured* or let people go their separate ways.

In *Europe,* the two best examples of fairly stable *multi-ethnic states* are the *UK* and the *Switzerland*. The former is led by reasonable men who permitted regional autonomy to the *Irish*, the *Scots* and the *Welsh*, while the *English* dominate *Westminster*. That's something some of us are asking for, but you're fighting against it in your own country wracked by *ethnic crisis*. Your own people are better off under oppression of fellow black men because your people have bad leaders who can't do better than their new *internal colonisers.*

The latter country, *Switzerland*, has *four ethnic groups*. Each of them *rotates the presidency* through seven cantons that constitute the *federating units*. All the four languages of the four ethnic groups are recognized as official languages and school languages to boot, namely, *German, French, Italian*, and *Romansch* that has just a few thousand speakers!

There's nowhere in the world where the *Caucasians* allow the domination of their group by another.

In *Canada*, *Quebec* is the only full *French-speaking province*, aside a little section of *New Brunswick.* The other *seven provinces* are *English-speaking.* Yet, *Canada* is *bilingual* for the sake of *Quebec*! And each of the provinces is largely *self-governing.*

Here we are in *Nigeria,* you have people arguing vehemently that a *decrepit, structurally-flawed, and crisis-prone artificial contraption* badly configured by the *British* only needs good people to survive. Why not centralise the powers of the *British regions* to *London* and see what happens?

I once believed in Nigeria but not in oppressive contraption saddled with brutality of fellow Nigerians. I think it’s time to ‘let my people go’ or change the status quo of governance."

https://www.youtube.com/c/EXCELLENTTVGlobal/community *(copied)*

You are right.. that is the reason africa is plagued with civil wars because all the countries in Africa are artificial creations and heterogenous... if the colonialists had created african countries strictly base on ethnic homogenity only ( tribes with same ancestry, culture, language, etc), africa would have been more developed and peaceful than it is today .. atleast, there would have not been civil wars that are caused mainly due to tribal hatred and that would have made the continent to develop faster and be more peaceful... in fact, we would have been developed and there will be no need for us to risk ourlives going to Europe were we are hated for our skin colour...
That Is why I always say that we should renegotiate and restructure Africa, and form New nations stricly base on ethnic homogenity only .. and you will see development in the continent...
The few african countries that a little bit homogenous are peaceful and basic things work there (i.e Botswana, and ghana) .....

capitalzero:
Most of the Diasporans here live in Europe; Can you show me one multi-ethnic state in *Europe* where one group is positioned to dominate the rest that hasn't broken up?

For those who may not know, what you call *ethnic groups* in *Nigeria* are called *nations* in *Europe*.

There's nowhere in the world where the *white man* accepts domination from another *white man* in *perpetuity.*

It used to be so under the *Roman* empire and the like. *Not anymore*. The *Communists* tried it, dividing society into capitalists and proletariats, deluding themselves that ethnicity is effectively swept under the carpet, but what followed? The Communist edifices in *Czechoslovakia,* *Yugoslavia,* and the big brother, *USSR,* all collapsed, while the two *Germans* that are ethnically the same but split by *communism* vs *capitalism* were reunited. Such is the power of *ethnic nationalism.*

*Czechoslovakia* was made up of *two ethnic groups*, the *Czechs* and the *Slovakians*. Both separated peacefully on *1st January 1993.* The former is today *10.6 million* people and the latter *5.4 million.* Added together, they're not up to *Lagos*. Yet, they split for *peace.* Two masters can't be in the same house.

*Yugoslavia* in *1991* was *23.2 million*, barely more than *Lagos* population. It broke into *six countries* same year - all along ethnic lines, namely: *Bosnia* and *Herzegovina*, *Croatia,*
*Macedonia*, *Montenegro,* *Serbia* , and *Slovenia*.

Then the big brother, *USSR*. It had, at least, the following ethnic groups identified by their languages:

*Regional languages:*
*Ukrainian

*Belarusian

*Uzbek

*Kazakh

*Georgian

*Azerbaijani

*Lithuanian

*Moldavian

*Latvian

*Kyrgyz

*Tajik

*Armenian

*Turkmen

*Estonian

*Minority languages:*

*Abkhaz

*Bashkir

*Buryat

*Chechen

*Finnish

*Volga German

*Korean

*Ossetian

*Tatar

&

*various others.

Today, your fingers will not be enough to count the *number of countries* that have emerged from the *USSR.*

Sit down there and be preaching unity in Nigeria as if you're the kindest gentleman on earth while you have no solution to the genocide in *Southern Kaduna,* the illegal but officially condoned arms in the hands of killer herdsmen roaming the country, and be condemning those better informed about the fact that the country is undergoing the strains of a *forced union* and should be *peacefully restructured* or let people go their separate ways.

In *Europe,* the two best examples of fairly stable *multi-ethnic states* are the *UK* and the *Switzerland*. The former is led by reasonable men who permitted regional autonomy to the *Irish*, the *Scots* and the *Welsh*, while the *English* dominate *Westminster*. That's something some of us are asking for, but you're fighting against it in your own country wracked by *ethnic crisis*. Your own people are better off under oppression of fellow black men because your people have bad leaders who can't do better than their new *internal colonisers.*

The latter country, *Switzerland*, has *four ethnic groups*. Each of them *rotates the presidency* through seven cantons that constitute the *federating units*. All the four languages of the four ethnic groups are recognized as official languages and school languages to boot, namely, *German, French, Italian*, and *Romansch* that has just a few thousand speakers!

There's nowhere in the world where the *Caucasians* allow the domination of their group by another.

In *Canada*, *Quebec* is the only full *French-speaking province*, aside a little section of *New Brunswick.* The other *seven provinces* are *English-speaking.* Yet, *Canada* is *bilingual* for the sake of *Quebec*! And each of the provinces is largely *self-governing.*

Here we are in *Nigeria,* you have people arguing vehemently that a *decrepit, structurally-flawed, and crisis-prone artificial contraption* badly configured by the *British* only needs good people to survive. Why not centralise the powers of the *British regions* to *London* and see what happens?

I once believed in Nigeria but not in oppressive contraption saddled with brutality of fellow Nigerians. I think it’s time to ‘let my people go’ or change the status quo of governance."

https://www.youtube.com/c/EXCELLENTTVGlobal/community *(copied)*

In precolonial era,we had Oyo empire,Benin kingdom,kanuri kingdom,Nupe kingdom etc before the two face British and france join us together.They copied our system in Europe and gave us their archaic and catastrophic system of chaos and bloodshed.

This is exactly the problem we have in Africa

What about USA?

kingsavage:
You are right.. that is the reason africa is plagued with civil wars because all the countries in Africa are artificial creations and heterogenous... if the colonialists had created african countries strictly base on ethnic homogenity only ( tribes with same ancestry, culture, language, etc), africa would have been more developed and peaceful than it is today .. atleast, there would have not been civil wars that are caused mainly due to tribal hatred and that would have made the continent to develop faster and be more peaceful... in fact, we would have been developed and there will be no need for us to risk ourlives going to Europe were we are hated for our skin colour...
That Is why I always say that we should renegotiate and restructure Africa, and form New nations stricly base on ethnic homogenity only .. and you will see development in the continent...
The few african countries that a little bit homogenous are peaceful and basic things work there (i.e Botswana, and ghana) .....

Ghana is not homogenous. It is as heterogenous as Nigeria (100 TRIBES)...and things 'work there' because they have a lesser populaiton than Nigeria and a higher tax to gdp ratio.

Botswana the same thing...eight major tribal groupings, 26 tribes in total...and they also have a lesser populaiton than Nigeria, and earn a high income than we do. (If Nigeria had ten million people only...and we still earned what we do from oil, we would be as rich as Botswana). And they have a higher tax to gdp ratio

You want homogenous African countries...try Somalia, which is very homogenous, and which has been in a state of war and anarchy since 1991.

I don't like the contraptions that most African countiries are...but they are better than the idea of homogenous volkstaats which predominated before colonialism, and which were all at each other's throats. And in which big tribes beat up small tribes. (Ethiopia is a contraption...fromed by Africans without colonial help. Big tribe conquered and forcefully assimilated small tribes. Same for Liberia too)

You want to split Nigeria...the problem is, you will end up with over 20 countries, and lots of fights for resourcess.

So, we are stuck with the contraption for now.

cocolacec:


In precolonial era,we had Oyo empire,Benin kingdom,kanuri kingdom,Nupe kingdom etc before the two face British and france join us together.They copied our system in Europe and gave us their archaic and catastrophic system of chaos and bloodshed.

And all those kingdoms were formed by bigger tribes assimilating smaller tribes. They were, in brief, contraptions..and they all were not at peace with each other.

Vardanes2:


Ghana is not homogenous. It is as heterogenous as Nigeria (100 TRIBES)...and things 'work there' because they have a lesser populaiton than Nigeria and a higher tax to gdp ratio.

Botswana the same thing...eight major tribal groupings, 26 tribes in total...and they also have a lesser populaiton than Nigeria, and earn a high income than we do. (If Nigeria had ten million people only...and we still earned what we do from oil, we would be as rich as Botswana). And they have a higher tax to gdp ratio

Ghana is NOWHERE as diverse as Southern Nigeria, talk more the whole of Nigeria.
Botswana even far less.

Ghana might have a couple of tribes, but it is politically and demographically dominated by the Akans, spearheaded by the Asantes.
Botswana literally comes from the Name of the homeland of the Batswana people. Botswana is a homogeneous country (pretty much) with inconsequential ethnic minority communities.

scholes0:


Ghana is NOWHERE as diverse as Southern Nigeria, talk more the whole of Nigeria.
Botswana even far less.

eH... OKAY..

Ghana might have a couple of tribes,

The Ashanti Tribe.
The Mole-Dagbon Tribe. ...
The Fante Tribe. ...
The Ewe Tribe. ...
Ga-Adangbe Tribe. ...
The Guan Tribe. ...
The Dagomba. ...
The Hausa.(Yes, them Hausas are there!)
Kusasi tribe

A couple eh? More like many more.,.....and they are all as distinct as Nigerian tribes....

but it is politically and demographically dominated by the Akans, spearheaded by the Asantes.

Like Nigeria is dominated by them Hausas, Yorubas, and Igbos....plus, let's be frank, you have just proven that Ghana is not homogenous..ie made up of just one tribe speaking the same language...

Botswana literally comes from the Name of the homeland of the Batswana people. Botswana is a homogeneous country (pretty much) with inconsequential ethnic minority communities.

1.Good for you, as a minority tribesperson, it's nice to know you indirectly consider us inconsequnetial. That's why we don't back your separatist movements, you big tribes want to eat us and our resources for lunch...

2.THe Botswana are made up of the Tswana...80% of the populaiton, the remainder is minority tribes....

3.Besides, you are avoiding good old SOmalia...90% Somali and in crisis.

Problem with you Nigerians, you don't want to do the hardwork of democracy. If Nigeria is not working, what makes you think that your ethnic vollkstat would work? Other than as an oil rich overimporter, or a tribal warfare chronic fighting state.?

Vardanes2:


And all those kingdoms were formed by bigger tribes assimilating smaller tribes. They were, in brief, contraptions..and they all were not at peace with each other.

True in European countries like Sweden for example have a majority Swedes and minorities such as Sami,Roma(Gypsies)and Jews.Swedish is the dominant language but the other languages are recognised as minority languages.

Nigeria is a COWNTRY

Nigeria is not a nation but a country.Nation is homogeneous in nature meaning is a simple society with people who shares same or common culture and speak the same language.A country on the other hand is complex meaning its heterogeneous in nature comprising of different ethnic group, diverse culture and different languages.People often call Nigeria a nation just to create a sense of unity but sincerely Nigeria is a country.

United nation of Nigeria

It is too late and it is impractical for African countries to redraw their boundaries. Even then, there are thousands of nations and they cannot each have their own UN recognised state

A more pragmatic approach would be for each country to take the territories they have based on their colonial history and do a proper internal organization (Ethiopia is an example) with regions having proper autonomy and high-level responsibilities

As a first level, Nigeria could have:
1. Arewa (North) populated by mainly Hausa, Fulani and Kanuri

2. Middle Belt (Central) populated by multiple nations which will not be dominated by any single nation

3. Yoruba (West)

4. Niger Delta (South) similar to Middle Belt

5. Igbo (East)

Further internal organisation can be done for the multi ethnic regions

Somalia has often been mentioned as an example of failure of a homogenous nation but their colonial history needs to be closely studied. The breakaway region called Somaliland were colonised by the British against the rest of the Somalia colonised by the Italians. In addition, part of the Somalian ethnic territory is in Ethiopia and Djibouti