crackhaus:
You make me laugh bruv. The topic on this thread, as with Fashola's argument is based on what should or should not be celebrated. It's you guys that started arguing over the mis-use of words like Country, Sovereignty, and so on.

But since you want to get clarification on Country versus Sovereign Country, I'll oblige you bruv.

A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY IS A COUNTRY, aint no damnn difference.
Here is a definition for you;
"A country is the most usual, neutral word for a geograhical area that has or used to have ITS OWN GOVERNMENT".
Now by that definition, we were not a country before 1960 because we were under the direct rule of the British Monarchy/Government...definitely not our own Government.
What we were, if that will serve your purpose to name Nigeria before 1960, is a NATIONALIZATION of people with the same or identical culture and history living in an area under one government (in this case, the British Government).

The amalgamation actually brought together two different nations of people (northerners and southerners) in the most widely rumoured mistake of the century, and this was done out of greed and blind ambition by the British colonialists.

My argument isn't really about what should be celebrated. Like i said, i would care less if neither of them are celebrated. My point is that the argument Fashola gave for why 1914 should not be celebrated is not right. Nigeria was founded or formed in 1914 and not 1960.

And pls don't go thinking that every country is sovereign. That's a pure fallacy. Are you insinuating that Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not countries?

crackhaus:
You make me laugh bruv. The topic on this thread, as with Fashola's argument is based on what should or should not be celebrated. It's you guys that started arguing over the mis-use of words like Country, Sovereignty, and so on.

But since you want to get clarification on Country versus Sovereign Country, I'll oblige you bruv.

A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY IS A COUNTRY, aint no damnn difference.
Here is a definition for you;
"A country is the most usual, neutral word for a geograhical area that has or used to have ITS OWN GOVERNMENT".
Now by that definition, we were not a country before 1960 because we were under the direct rule of the British Monarchy/Government...definitely not our own Government.
What we were, if that will serve your purpose to name Nigeria before 1960, is a NATIONALIZATION of people with the same or identical culture and history living in an area under one government (in this case, the British Government).

The amalgamation actually brought together two different nations of people (northerners and southerners) in the most widely rumoured mistake of the century, and this was done out of greed and blind ambition by the British colonialists.

Bruv, welcome to the frustration of dealing with some Nigerians and their issues of patent dishonesty and vacuous obstinacy. Nairaland has been an eye-opener with how so many contributors are patently fraudulent in their utterance which, in a totally shameless and 'korokoro' manner, defies what the entire world accepts to be the official truth about certain issues.

We even read ridiculously from a charlatan that Nigeria became a sovereign nation in 1914 !!! What are we then to do with what the world deems a sovereign Nation to be while some fraudulent Nigerians are busy creating their own inane definition of such to suit a deceptive defence of their flawed argument? I really don't understand why so many Nairalanders have a penchant for dishonesty/deception and the brazen display of such.

berem: LOL! This our moderator sabi book no be small! Dem say I no dey intelligent but I don see pesin wey I better pass.At least I still get hope. Can't stop laughing at this comment. Bwahahahaha!!

Don't tell me you take the utterances of these Nairaland fraudsters , "billionaires", "business leaders", "medical doctor on sabbatical" et al seriously? They are all as thick as two short planks plus shameless liars and 419ners to boot !!! If anyone will claim to be more intelligent than you then it should not be these 'empty heads' with nothing between their ears Imagine the house "Billionaire" saying Nigeria was a sovereign nation in 1914. The clowns on this forum sef

The celebration (if it happen) is just an excuse to loot and waste money.

Gbawe:

An absolute 'thicko' calling Fashola ignorant. How ironic. My friend, go and improve your general knowledge, with an emphasis on comprehending the meaning of words, before coming here to embarrass yourself. It seems you don't know what a Sovereign Nation/State is before proclaiming Nigeria to be one in 1914. It is always you 'airheads' who are most vacuously ungracious with your utterances.

To make things crystal clear to even your ultra-thick brain, I present a link below which shows a list of sovereign states of the World by date of formation with Nigeria's date of acquisition of sovereignty given as 01 October 1960 i.e the date she gained independence from the United Kingdom. This is why Governor Fashola you insult is a leader while you are here displaying crass ignorance daily and pretending to be what your glaring lack of intelligence show you are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation

I was ignorant and I apologize for misleading but calling me names on a topical discourse is inappropriate.

Billyonaire:

I was ignorant and I apologize for misleading but calling me names on a topical discourse makes me question your sanity.

You should be ashamed.

You ended up giving up yourself as a Billionaire of ignorance.

Afam4eva:
My argument isn't really about what should be celebrated. Like i said, i would care less if neither of them are celebrated. My point is that the argument Fashola gave for why 1914 should not be celebrated is not right. Nigeria was founded or formed in 1914 and not 1960.

And pls don't go thinking that every country is sovereign. That's a pure fallacy. Are you insinuating that Australia, Canada and New Zealand are not countries?

Dafuq are you talking about Australia, Canada and New Zealand?
Yes, every country is sovereign and that's why they are called a country. The sovereign added at the beginning just implies that they were once a colony of another country, simple!

Sovereign=Independent, Autonomous

As for those countries you mentioned, I don't get what you were trying to point out but if it's about the Queen being their monarch, then that's not even a case to be argued. The job of the British Crown in those countries is more or less ceremonial, with no powers accompanying it whatsoever.
The Queen of England may as well be referred to as the Queen of all British Colonized territories outside GB, which includes Nigeria. But she won't want that title bestowed on the Crown on behalf of a third-world country which also doubles as a Negro country.

My point being, the Queen is still ceremonially recognized as Queen in Canada, New Zealand and Australia because those territories are as white as the Crown
Call it propaganda if you wish, we all know the world is built on it.

Billyonaire:

I was ignorant and I apologize for misleading but calling me names on a topical discourse is inappropriate.

All right. Perhaps that was uncalled for from me and indeed inappropriate so I apologize for that too. Nonetheless, you should not have labelled Fashola "ignorant". If you insult others when you are actually wrong then reactions may be a tad strong to such ungracious conduct but I think you are right that I was wrong to insult you. Point taken. Sorry.

Afam4eva:
[s]Nigeria was founded or formed in 1914 and not 1960.[/s]

I don't know what your definition of founded or formed is, but Nigeria was already in existence before 1914 as a geographical region. What happened in 1914 was neo-colonization, aptly referred to as amalgamation;

Colonization implies, the process of taking control of an area/region that is not your own, ESPECIALLY USING FORCE, and sending people from your own country/region to live there.

So back to your point, who forms that which was already in existence?

Afam4eva:
if the Northern Nigeria opted out before 1960, 1914 would have still being Nigeria's birthday. The date won't change. Imagine if Eastern Nigeria breaks away from Nigeria in 2015, will the date of birth of Nigeria become 2015? The date of birth will remain 1914 while the date of independence will also remain 1960. Do you think India changed their history when Pakistan(and Bangladesh) broke away?

Oh my God! This dude ure dense as hell.

We have a saying in our place and it goes; without your mama you for know your papa?
With the name Nigeria in 1914 you for know Independent Nigeria in 1960. hearing this from
fashola shows that there is no Nigeria. Why are we forcing ourselves to be one?

Billyonaire:

I was ignorant and I apologize for misleading but calling me names on a topical discourse is inappropriate.

Its rare to see someone on Nairaland admit that they were wrong• Its good to find one•

Ferdinandu: Celebration of Amalgamation of Northernern And Southern Protectorate is a celebration of massive and unparalled failure.The amalgamation is not working so why are we celebrating it?

exactly.
On point

braine:

That's his personal opinnion though and it makes sense• You're the first person to politicize this thread after two pages which shows your post aint valid to me•

dont disturb my life.
Are u n sum odas here not supporting fashola because of party affliations?
His reasons for no celebration does not make sense.
D celebration is a waste of resources - agreed but for those useless theories he proposed, NO

crackhaus:
Dafuq are you talking about Australia, Canada and New Zealand?
Yes, every country is sovereign and that's why they are called a country. The sovereign added at the beginning just implies that they were once a colony of another country, simple!

Sovereign=Independent, Autonomous

As for those countries you mentioned, I don't get what you were trying to point out but if it's about the Queen being their monarch, then that's not even a case to be argued. The job of the British Crown in those countries is more or less ceremonial, with no powers accompanying it whatsoever.
The Queen of England may as well be referred to as the Queen of all British Colonized territories outside GB, which includes Nigeria. But she won't want that title bestowed on the Crown on behalf of a third-world country which also doubles as a Negro country.

My point being, the Queen is still ceremonially recognized as Queen in Canada, New Zealand and Australia because those territories are as white as the Crown
Call it propaganda if you wish, we all know the world is built on it.

The Queen of England is still the Head of State of those countries because they aren't Republics. A Republic doesn't have a monarchy at the top eg Nigeria, USA, South Africa, Germany etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=typb10iiQJc

Nigeria at 100 Since 1st october 1914

Afam4eva:
I don't know much about how the US came to be. Maybe you can help us.

Why should Southern-Cameroon celebrate Nigeria's amalgamation when it's no longer part of Nigeria.

can u please tell me exactly when southern Cameroon was a part of Nigeria? The amount of ignorance from Nigerians is baffling. I will b waiting for your answer

CAMEROONPRIDE: can u please tell me exactly when southern Cameroon was a part of Nigeria? The amount of ignorance from Nigerians is baffling. I will b waiting for your answer

Southern Cameroon was part of Nigeria from 1914 to 1961. In the 1961 plebiscite, Southern Cameroon opted to join the rest of Cameroon.
In fact, in pre-independent Nigeria there was a political party called "National Council of Nigeria and Cameroon; which subsequently changed to "National Council of Nigerian Citizens" in 1961.

CFCfan:
Southern Cameroon was part of Nigeria from 1914 to 1961. In the 1961 plebiscite, Southern Cameroon opted to join the rest of Cameroon.
In fact, in pre-independent Nigeria there was a political party called "National Council of Nigeria and Cameroon; which subsequently changed to "National Council of Nigerian Citizens" in 1961.

stop peddling lies here, the above post doesn't even make sense, if S.Cameroon was part of Nigeria there would b no need for a referendum or plebiscite, s.Cameroon was a territory under british tutelage/ protectorate which was mandated by the scdn after Germany was defeated . It has never been a part of Nigeria. It was managed from Nigeria due to the proximity and the laziness of British

CAMEROONPRIDE: stop peddling lies here, the above post doesn't even make sense, if S.Cameroon was part of Nigeria there would b no need for a referendum or plebiscite, s.Cameroon was a territory under british tutelage/ protectorate which was mandated by the scdn after Germany was defeated . It has never been a part of Nigeria. It was managed from Nigeria due to the proximity and the laziness of British

CFCfan is right. I suspect that you are getting your 'facts' from the lies posted in wikipedia which can be edited by anyone. Please site an alternative source for what you stated above.

The political party mentioned by CFCfan existed without a doubt.

ndu_chucks:

CFCfan is right. I suspect that you are getting your 'facts' from the lies posted in wikipedia which can be edited by anyone. Please site an alternative source for what you stated above.

The political party mentioned by CFCfan existed without a doubt.

I got what I'm saying from my high school classes, history book and civic education. The party was in Nigeria because the British didn't build a parliament. This is common sense if they were a part of Nigeria they would have never had the opportunity to choose again whether they want to join Cameroon or Nigeria. Besides Cameroon was never a British or a French colony. We were a protectorate so I don't get your southern Cameroon was a part of Nigeria .from the beginning we have never been a colony we were a German protectorate, after Germany was defeated in WW2 we were handoverbu the Scdn(former UN ) to French and Britain who decided to divide the country in two : southern Cameroon and oriental Cameroon ..or R u saying also that northern Cameroon was a part of Nigeria? Yet they decided to join Nigeria?

CAMEROONPRIDE: I got what I'm saying from my high school classes, history book and civic education. The party was in Nigeria because the British didn't build a parliament. This is common sense if they were a part of Nigeria they would have never had the opportunity to choose again whether they want to join Cameroon or Nigeria. Besides Cameroon was never a British or a French colony. We were a protectorate so I don't get your southern Cameroon was a part of Nigeria .from the beginning we have never been a colony we were a German protectorate, after Germany was defeated in WW2 we were handoverbu the Scdn(former UN ) to French and Britain who decided to divide the country in two : southern Cameroon and oriental Cameroon ..or R u saying also that northern Cameroon was a part of Nigeria? Yet they decided to join Nigeria?

You have a point there. The British ran their colonies on the cheap, that could be the reason why some scholars think S.Cameroon was part of Nigeria. However, there was a party called the NCNC.
Also, Northern Cameroon decided to remain within Nigeria after the 1961 plebiscite.

Decided to join not to remain, I'm on my phone actually don't know why I can copy and paste links .
Britain didn't do anything for southern Cameroon , if you go there u won't see any trace of them except the language. They didn't want to send more colons so the ones in Nigeria were the ones in charge. The proximity of both territories helped them