₦airaland Forum

[quote author=ndu_chucks]If is is not an Awo thread opened to bad mouth Yorubas, it is an Ojukwu thread designed to do the same to the Igbos.
If it is not a thread about armed robbers and kidnappers in Igboland, it is a thread about a Yoruba man who has killed his wife in a horific manner.

Enough of the crap, you people have become an embarassment to the rest of us. The funny thing is that I do not know a single Igbo man in real life who habours so much hatred for Yorubas or a Yoruba person with similar amount of hatred for Igbos. The Igbos I know want the same out of life and Nigeria as the Yorubas i.e. the betterment of Nigeria and a brighter future for their children.

The childishness is getting old and I appeal to you all to cut the crap.[/quote]... and who told you Igbos don't resent Yorubas in real life? They are not Nigerians and they should go.

What was my crime, moderators?
Why was my post: Musiwa: Yorubas Are Strangers to Nigeria deleted?

If I did wrong, let me know so that I'll avoid such next time.

Paul John: If yorubas were not Nigerians before, then what were they before?

They were Lagosians before. You should opt out like Southern Cameroun did.

Why would any right thinking person include the Yorubas in Southern Nigeria People's Assembly. Are they Southern Nigerians?

kunlekunle: The name nigeria was fromed before 1900 by lady SHAW.
She was an employee of royal niger company that controlled the whole north.
shall we say you SS are parasites bearing that name (nigeria)

The name Nigeria was given to people North and South of River Niger. Yorubas were never Nigerians, they were added to Nigeria like Southern and Northern Cameroun were added to Nigeria. Yorubas are strangers.

kunlekunle: please can you explain the amalgamation of 1906

1906 amalgamation was when Yorubas (strangers) were added to peaceful Southern Nigeria to create disharmony in the South and things have never been the same again.

Do you know that more than half of both Igala and Idoma are Southerners and not Northerners?
They were not originally in Northern Nigeria.

Paul John: With those map up there, was Edo part of the old Eastern region?

This is not about Eastern Region, it's about a country called Southern Nigeria and it has nothing to do with the Yorubas or SW.

Why does everyone talk about 1914 amalgamation and hide the fact there was an amalgamation in 1906?
Why did Nigeria lie to us for these years?
Why the deliberate distortion of our history?

Why should we celebrate 1914 amalgamation when we didn't celebrate 1906 amalgamation? There's nothing to celebrate about, both amalgamations are tragic!
Nigerian history should not be distorted and every kid should know the nation's history. Just like Hausas are strangers to us so are Yorubas.
Everyone should go back to their countries, we are not the same.



www.nairaland.com/attachments/789954_480317_4359667628276_1152914446_n_jpgb7f450f3191b1c2360cb674fc5f97a67

I think the most important thing to note is that Protectorate of Southern Nigeria's head was cut off so that Colony of Lagos would grow.
We continue to pay for this till this day, it has to end.

PhysicsQED: You're referring to this, right:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lDFEOHnOl-0C&pg=PA138

The context for that is given on p. 139 of that same book and also here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=GrcNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA75

The 800,000 - 1,250,000 figure is the estimated cost, and they did in fact, have to borrow money from the Treasury as you said, as confirmed directly here:

books.google.com/books?id=90UnAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA61



I think you're referring to this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lDFEOHnOl-0C&pg=PA146

(where Ralph Moor proposed a rail line system estimated to cost 15,000,000 pounds for southern Nigeria)

The Lagos to Ibadan rail line was authorized in 1895 and actual work on it began in 1898 though. And as you can see from the second link I posted, they had already made significant progress on the rail line by 1899 so I don't know if it would have made sense to abandon that one or to build another rail line that they thought (for whatever reason) would take revenue away from the existing one.

Now the link immediately above (p.146 of that book) shows that the reasons for shelving Moor's proposal for Southern Nigeria by those in charge basically amounted to 1) "the Lagos rail line was already there" , 2) "it might take revenue away from the existing Lagos rail line", 3) "they had no reason to believe at the time that an eastern rail line might even be necessary." (which contradicted Lugard's belief that [url=books.google.com/books?id=90UnAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA41]"an eastern line will be both strategically and economically necessary"[/url]) and 4) "financial considerations"

Southern Nigeria, although a richer colony, had not started bringing in sufficient revenue for the British as at 1901 (the year that Moor's plan was proposed) for the colony to be able to pay for a 15,000,000 pound rail line while also partially paying for Northern Nigeria's administration, without also borrowing and incurring debt.

If you read the specifics of Moor's letter where he made the proposal,

http://books.google.com/books?id=90UnAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA44

two things are clear:

1) That the revenue from no part of Nigeria would be enough to cover the initial costs of any rail line whether the western (Lagos to the North) or the eastern (Calabar to the North). (see section 6)

2) That the 10,000,000 to 15,000,000 pounds for additional expenditure on a rail line was to be borrowed from the Treasury (placing the borrowing colony in "debt" (although really, it was a British territory at that point, so one British government is borrowing from another)) to pay for the initial costs in the hope/belief that these initial costs and the costs of the upkeep and maintenance of these rail lines would be made up for by money gained from local revenue from the colony at a later time and the monetary benefit to British skilled workers employed in the colony at a later time. (see section 7)

You are right about the merger of the colony of Lagos with the rest of Southern Nigeria improving the colony of Lagos's developmental prospects in this instance though because it seems that the planners of the Lagos rail were only able to get further loans from the Treasury to complete the rail because of the promise that it was going to be merged with Southern Nigeria:

books.google.com/books?id=lDFEOHnOl-0C&pg=PA162



Lagos was never dredged specifically in favor of Calabar by the British though. The other ports in consideration as a terminal of the first (western) rail line to the North were Warri or Sapele. The selection of Lagos over Warri or Sapele as the terminus seems to have been arbitrary. They were always going to have either Lagos, Warri, or Sapele as the terminal of the western railway to the North, but their decision to drop the second (eastern) railway to the north out of fear that it would infringe on the revenue from the first one and out of financial considerations seems to be how Calabar got sidelined in the whole process.

The failure to dredge Calabar lies mostly on successive Nigerian governments, not just on the British, so I do agree that there was political and economic loss on the part of the rest of southern Nigeria from the joining of the colonies by Britain. But I suspect the fact that Calabar is further inland is the real problem/obstacle there as far as dredging the port for Nigerian governments.

Lagos (Stamp)

https://www.sandafayre.com/rarestamps/galleryimages/thumbnails/2917.jpg






Northern Nigeria (Stamps)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Stamps_of_Northern_Nigeria.jpg/220px-Stamps_of_Northern_Nigeria.jpg






Southern Nigeria (Stamps)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Stamp_Southern_Nigeria_1901_1sh.jpg/220px-Stamp_Southern_Nigeria_1901_1sh.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Stamp_Southern_Nigeria_1907_1p.jpg/220px-Stamp_Southern_Nigeria_1907_1p.jpg

Discordia: Thats not even funny

... and what is not funny about it?

LAGOS:
Date created: 1861
Existed: 1861-1906 (45 years)
Important Towns: Lagos, Ibadan, Abeokuta, Ife, Akure


Northern Nigeria
Date created: 1900
Existed: 1900-1914 (14 years)
Important Towns: Abuja, Kano, Kaduna, Ilorin, Bauchi, Sokoto, Jos, Minna


Southern Nigeria
Date created: 1900
Existed: 1900-1906 (6 years)
Important Towns: Enugu, Onitsha, Calabar, Benin City, Aba, Port Harcourt, Warri, Owerri

There are just two options: dissolve Nigeria or secede individually.
This involves just two options as well, either peacefully or through war.

Secession cannot happen without war. The only group that can secede in Nigeria now is Biafra if the UN wants to help, just like they helped South Sudan after their own war.
You cannot secede in your house, you can only do that in the battle field and Biafra has done that.

The final option is dissolution and it's peaceful like the case of USSR.
Nigeria is a union of 3 countries: Lagos, Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria and their boarders are recognised. Like every union, it can be dissolved peacefully.
This is the only way if you want peace.


www.nairaland.com/attachments/799572_Countries_in_Nigeria_1900_pngae5a5c9931b6bc3903a8e6d3854bdde5

It is good that Nigeria and Nigerians should know their history. When you know where you came from, then you'll know where you are heading to.
Nigeria is a union like Soviet Union, a union made up of 3 countries with internationally recognised boarders, with history showing when they were officially born.
These 3 countries are Northern Nigeria, Southern Nigeria, and Lagos. See map below.

If you talk of secession, I believe, you are talking about breaking away and may be achieved through war or referendum. If you talk of dissolution, you are talking about dissolving bonds formed from a union. Biafra tried secession in 1967 but failed as her boundaries were not recognised, unlike the USSR that dissolved peacefully along her internationally recognised boundaries to various countries that made up the Soviet Union.

Many are tired of the union called Nigeria and believe their development has been hampered or stunted and wish the union dissolved. This we can achieve by presenting a legitimate case to the UN to step in and help the union dissolve. Any group that are within the boundaries of the 3 countries that made up Nigeria could, afterwards, seek secession that may be granted to them through a referendum.



www.nairaland.com/attachments/799572_Countries_in_Nigeria_1900_pngae5a5c9931b6bc3903a8e6d3854bdde5

My main purpose was to show that Lagos (the whole SW) was not part of Protectorate of Southern Nigeria and that we, Southern Nigerians (SE/SS), lost economically and politically as a result of 1906 amalgamation.

GAR3TH: @Onlytruth The OP stated that the whole reason why the Southern Protectorate was merge with the Colony of Lagos was because the British wanted to use the resources of the southern protectorate to develop Lagos. He believe that colony of lagos was poor and lacked funds which is completely incorrect. not only was Lagos the economic trade Hub of west Africa due to its ports back in the 1900 but it was a well developed crowned colony. The colony of Lagos was annexed to Great britian meaning the people of lagos were British subjects and enjoyed the rights of British citizens. The colony of lagos also had its own executive council who governed lagos. On the other hand the protectorate of southern Nigeria was not Annexed and remained a protectorate. Being a protectorate the people living there did not have british citizenship but they were ruled by british. Even after the merge a small Legislative Council was set up just for lagos to help the british citizens of Lagos Colony to enacting Laws and scrutinising estimates and expenditure seperate from the South protectorate. Hence why after the merge it is call the colony and protectorate of southern Nigeria. So to say Lagos was a the parasite in the merging is wrong, the were self governed and a economic hub.

PhysicsQED: I'm not failing to understand anything.

You can't just insinuate that because cocoa is not a traditional African crop that it was only being sold in the 50s when that is false (rather, it was only worth a lot more starting around the early 50s), and you can't also just insinuate that the sale of palm oil from the rest of southern Nigeria was covering the costs of the colony of Lagos when the colony of Lagos was itself selling palm oil unless you can show that the palm oil and other revenue from the colony of Lagos was so much less than that of the rest of southern Nigeria that it would not have been able to stand alone. This is a very simple thing to understand.

Lagos was not a parasite, I never did call her a parasite. The parasite had always been Protectorate of Northern Nigeria. Both Southern Nigeria and Lagos were paying them even before Amalgamation (the richer Southern Nigeria paid way more than Lagos did pay them).

My point remains that Lagos was living and doing good since after their wars but they were not moving at the expected rate. Their finances were reasonably good. However, there was other options for the merger, Lagos and North first before the South but that option was not favoured. Already Lagos was in debt after borrowing heavily (between 800,000 - 1,250,000 pounds) to construct Lagos-Ibadan rail line and their finances was shaky. From 1900 till amalgamation of both Southern Nigeria and Lagos, Lagos could not borrow again because no one could guarantee that and they couldn't borrow at a reasonable rate.
Meanwhile, Southern Nigeria that was just born in 1900 proposed a staggering 15,000,000 pounds for her rail line and guess what happened, it was shelved to finish the Lagos line first. Our first loss. After that followed the dredging of Lagos port in favour of Calabar.

With the prospect of merger of Lagos and the prosperous Southern Nigeria, Lagos was able to borrow again.