British named them *Burma.* They rejected it, restructured & renamed themselves *Myanmar.*

-British named them *Upper Volta*, but they rejected it, restructured and renamed themselves *Burkina Faso* - Land of Incorruptible People.

-British named them *Gold Coast,* they rejected it, restructured and renamed themselves *Ghana.*

-British named them *Southern Rhodesia.* They rejected it, restructured and renamed themselves *Zimbabwe.*

-British named them *Northern Rhodesia.* They rejected it, restructured and renamed themselves *Zambia.*

-British named them *Tanganyika.* They rejected it, restructured & renamed themselves *Tanzania.*

-Germans named them *colony of South West Africa.* They rejected it, restructured and renamed themselves *Namibia.*

-France named them *Dahomey.* They rejected it, restructured and renamed themselves *Benin.*

-Belgium named them *Zaire.* However, they rejected it, restructured & renamed themselves *Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).*

-Britain named a bunch of people - *Nigeria.* They rather kill to preserve it than restructure and give themselves a befitting new name.

*"It is only an animal that bears the name that is given to it by his enemy"* (Proverb).

THE FUTILITY OF PRESERVING NIGERIA

My angry reaction earlier today on APC UK platform:

Most of the Diasporans here living 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 do 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 Czech 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 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 annually through seven cantons that constitute the federation 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 rest my case.*

Just end the Circle Of Evil.

Very direct yet hard to comprehend by those at the top.

If only slap can reset brains, I would have voluntarily given it to our so called irresponsible rulers

when it comes national contraptions created around the work Nigeria takes the first and the worst. Everything about it is flawed. I mean everything

Changing the country name without changing the leaders that's giving us bad government or restructuring the Country IS LIKE CHANGING MAD PERSON CLOTH WITHOUT CURING THE MADNESS.

Where it will be better is restructure the country before changing the Name to what ever they will call it.

Hello

Nawao

Pharaoh4rin:
British named them *Burma.* They rejected it, restructured & renamed themselves *Myanmar.*

-British named them *Upper Volta*, but they rejected it, restructured and renamed themselves *Burkina Faso* - Land of Incorruptible People.

-British named them *Gold Coast,* they rejected it, restructured and renamed themselves *Ghana.*

-British named them *Southern Rhodesia.* They rejected it, restructured and renamed themselves *Zimbabwe.*

-British named them *Northern Rhodesia.* They rejected it, restructured and renamed themselves *Zambia.*

-British named them *Tanganyika.* They rejected it, restructured & renamed themselves *Tanzania.*

-Germans named them *colony of South West Africa.* They rejected it, restructured and renamed themselves *Namibia.*

-France named them *Dahomey.* They rejected it, restructured and renamed themselves *Benin.*

-Belgium named them *Zaire.* However, they rejected it, restructured & renamed themselves *Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).*

-Britain named a bunch of people - *Nigeria.* They rather kill to preserve it than restructure and give themselves a befitting new name.

*"It is only an animal that bears the name that is given to it by his enemy"* (Proverb).

THE FUTILITY OF PRESERVING NIGERIA

My angry reaction earlier today on APC UK platform:

Most of the Diasporans here living 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 do 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 Czech 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 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 annually through seven cantons that constitute the federation 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 rest my case.*

Please, stop comparing Africa to Europe and America.

I don't even know if Europe has up to 50 languages.

They can afford to build ethnically homogenous nations.

AFRICA CANNOT.

Africa has over 2,000 languages.

Nigeria alone has 300.

So what are you talking about?

If these African nations split up into ethnic nations, we would have thousands of unviable republics, each one vulnerable to western vandals looking to dominate you.

You have NO CHOICE, but to unbrainwash yourselves of ethno-nationalism, hatred and rivalry.

Rwanda, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania etc are all dong this. They are de-emphasising ethnicity in a big way, and forging national identities.

Even if you say you want to dissolve the current nations and federate with more 'compatible' ethnic groups, whatever new nations you build, there will always be one ethnic group larger than the other, and hence 'dominating'.

YOUR JOB AS INTELLIGENT BEINGS is to find a way to manage this diversity, via political system initiatives, and new political science paradigms and innovations.

It is not about every 'tribe' retreating into its own self and ''every body answering his father's name''.

It was that fragmentation which made Africa so vulnerable to the slave trade. The more centralised empires like Benin, the Hausa states, Sokoto Caliphate, Oyo Empire etc, outrightly banned the slave trade in their territories. It was the fragmented coastal villages and communities of the West African coasts that were so easy for the European enslavers to penetrate and carry out their activities.

Lesson: You have NO CHOICE but to live in large, centralised multi-ethnic nations.

United you stand. Divided you fall.