Omarbah:

They do have their share of blame of course.

Okay I am confused. Did they place restrictions on the slave trade to "increase production" or not? If they did wouldn't that mean that the slave trade itself was detrimental to their economies?


Multiethnic states are not a new thing in West Africa. The Ghana empire, the Mali empire, the Songhai empire, the Tekrur, Futa Toro of Koli Tengella, the Sokoto Caliphate were all multiethnic and that did not prevent them from flourishing. So the argument about us having to bundle into our own kingdoms or states in order to guarantee greatness does not stand.
My point throughout this whole debate has been that monoethnic states won't protect their citizens from foreign influence and competition. Under one form or the other, we need to bundle up and let go of our differences and look at our common interest. Nothing prevents a multiethnic state from allowing the ethnic group to set up an education system using its language.

I think someone already clarified that the argument is more to do with culture than ethnicity, a view that I've shared. All the states you listed obviously had an overarching culture, and many of them were even ruled by a single ethic group like the Fulani. A society needs some kind of cohesive mainstream culture to be successful in my opinion and many African countries don't have that.

ezeagu:
I think someone already clarified that the argument is more to do with culture than ethnicity, a view that I've shared. All the states you listed obviously had an overarching culture, and many of them were even ruled by a single ethic group like the Fulani. A society needs some kind of cohesive[b] mainstream culture[/b] to be successful in my opinion and many African countries don't have that.

Mainstream culture is built from the interaction of the different cultures in a society. What is truly important for people to live together in peace is for them to be subject to the same laws, for everyone to be represented in the institutions and have a voice. Mali has Bambara has common language used by almost everyone, but due to the exclusion of the Tuareg there has been frequent rebellions. In Senegal everyone is represented in the government. The Wolof are the majority but the first two presidents were Serer and the current one is Fulani. Only the third president was Wolof. Also did I mention that in a country of 94% Muslims, their first president was a Catholic? Now it is true that they have a mainstream culture borrowed from Serer, Wolof, Fulani/Toucouleur and Maninka. But that was possible because of their politics. But even there, the Jola that considered themselves "rejected" have a "rebellion" in their region. It's a mafia type thing though, it is considered a "low level" conflict.
Problems truly arise when one ethnic group or a religious group is excluded from power. When we developed a paranoia and hatred for a group of the population then things go wrong. Look at Somali, it's one ethnic group, same language , same religion but due their clans and the desire of some to impose their will on others, the country is in bad shape.
So I would say, a union of people of different culture would work, all is needed a political system to ensure everyone is represented.

Omarbah:
Mainstream culture is built from the interaction of the different cultures in a society. What is truly important for people to live together in peace is for them to be subject to the same laws, for everyone to be represented in the institutions and have a voice. Mali has Bambara has common language used by almost everyone, but due to the exclusion of the Tuareg there has been frequent rebellions. In Senegal everyone is represented in the government. The Wolof are the majority but the first two presidents were Serer and the current one is Fulani. Only the third president was Wolof. Also did I mention that in a country of 94% Muslims, their first president was a Catholic? Now it is true that they have a mainstream culture borrowed from Serer, Wolof, Fulani/Toucouleur and Maninka. But that was possible because of their politics. But even there, the Jola that considered themselves "rejected" have a "rebellion" in their region. It's a mafia type thing though, it is considered a "low level" conflict.
Problems truly arise when one ethnic group or a religious group is excluded from power. When we developed a paranoia and hatred for a group of the population then things go wrong. Look at Somali, it's one ethnic group, same language , same religion but due their clans and the desire of some to impose their will on others, the country is in bad shape.
So I would say, a union of people of different culture would work, all is needed a political system to ensure everyone is represented.

A common culture is obviously not the only way to build a successful society, but looking at all the examples we have it's obviously strongly linked with successful societies. The examples you have sent aren't really countries with a strong over arching culture. Better examples are Botswana, Tunisia, Cape Verde and to a certain extent Equatorial Guinea.

The current president of the United States is of Luo descent, it really doesn't change America's Anglo based culture.

ezeagu:

A common culture is obviously not the only way to build a successful society, but looking at all the examples we have it's obviously strongly linked with successful societies. The examples you have sent aren't really countries with a strong over arching culture. Better examples are Botswana, Tunisia, Cape Verde and to a certain extent Equatorial Guinea.

The current president of the United States is of Luo descent, it really doesn't change America's Anglo based culture.

A common culture is built in the long term with interactions from the different cultural groups. For this "mixing" to work, we first need a political system that represents everyone.
I take Senegal as an example because the "Wolofization" of their society has only worked because no ethnic , including the minor ones have felt discriminated against since independence, not even the religious minorities. And they did with peace too.

Omarbah:

They do have their share of blame of course.

Still doesn't excuse thte fact that you condem 19th century Africans for an extremely common world wide trade. Sure its bad now, but back then(and even now), their only real crime was the scale at which it took place.

Omarbah: Okay I am confused. Did they place restrictions on the slave trade to "increase production" or not? If they did wouldn't that mean that the slave trade itself was detrimental to their economies?

To maintain the high production. No-one knows how high their production was prior to 19th century but we know the slave trade was a huge threat to (non-slave trading) industries. The rulers needed to look for new ways to combat potential decline in production so they restricted slave trading. Whats the issue again?

Omarbah: Multiethnic states are not a new thing in West Africa. The Ghana empire, the Mali empire, the Songhai empire, the Tekrur, Futa Toro of Koli Tengella, the Sokoto Caliphate were all multiethnic and that did not prevent them from flourishing.

Sure, But guess what. How did those states get so big in the first place? You really don't think most of the ethnic groups (states, really) just polity let Mali or Songhai lord over them did you? In order for said states to get so big, they conquered and pillaged other kingdoms to take over their land. I would have recommend the same thing for Africa today if there wasn't the whole slaughtering/carnage problem and the UN breathing down the necks of aspiring 21st century conquistadors.

Omarbah: So the argument about us having to bundle into our own kingdoms or states in order to guarantee greatness does not stand. My point throughout this whole debate has been that monoethnic states won't protect their citizens from foreign influence and competition. Under one form or the other, we need to bundle up and let go of our differences and look at our common interest. Nothing prevents a multiethnic state from allowing the ethnic group to set up an education system using its language.

Its still a more effective route to take than one massive country rife with political instability and zero identity, and has been tried and tested. Even the ancient states you mentioned started out single ethnic and grew from there.

As ezeagu stated it can work, but a single-ethnic set up is more economical, politically-friendly, an has yielded more examples of success.

ezeagu:

A common culture is obviously not the only way to build a successful society, but looking at all the examples we have it's obviously strongly linked with successful societies. The examples you have sent aren't really countries with a strong over arching culture. Better examples are Botswana, Tunisia, Cape Verde and to a certain extent Equatorial Guinea.

The current president of the United States is of Luo descent, it really doesn't change America's Anglo based culture.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this, he knows hardly anything about his father's side of his culture. He was raised by his mother and his grandparents so his African side is completely absent.

Omarbah:
A common culture is built in the long term with interactions from the different cultural groups. For this "mixing" to work, we first need a political system that represents everyone.
I take Senegal as an example because the "Wolofization" of their society has only worked because no ethnic , including the minor ones have felt discriminated against since independence, not even the religious minorities. And they did with peace too.

That's the point, you can't force the mixing, either there's a general sense of oneness or at least cohesiveness, having a set goal in mind, or there isn't. Yugoslavia is a prime example. You're not going to get Kanuri people picking up actual Igbo culture or the versa.

Fulaman198:

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this, he knows hardly anything about his father's side of his culture. He was raised by his mother and his grandparents so his African side is completely absent.

That's besides the point, he's still black. Besides even better examples are of the various European communities that came to America and had to adapt to an Anglo culture, many of them literally changed their names on Ellis island to a Anglicised (or Americanised) version. Neuman became Newman and so on.

ezeagu:
That's the point, you can't force the mixing, either there's a general sense of oneness or at least cohesiveness, having a set goal in mind, or there isn't. Yugoslavia is a prime example. You're not going to get Kanuri people picking up actual Igbo culture or the versa.

that is due to the history of political "conflicts". Fulanis and Maninkas do not get along in Guinea, but cross the border to Liberia or Cote d'Ivoire, they act as if they are one community.
If every single person no matter the ethnic group could have a shot a ruling Nigeria since 1962, many of the so called differences between Nigerians would not exist. Doesn't Northern Nigerian society, despite the multiplicity of ethnic group has a sort of mainstream culture?

Omarbah:
that is due to the history of political "conflicts". Fulanis and Maninkas do not get along in Guinea, but cross the border to Liberia or Cote d'Ivoire, they act as if they are one community.
If every single person no matter the ethnic group could have a shot a ruling Nigeria since 1962, many of the so called differences between Nigerians would not exist. Doesn't Northern Nigerian society, despite the multiplicity of ethnic group has a sort of mainstream culture?

Yah it's the same with Fulani and Hausa in Niger. They don't really get along but cross the border into Nigeria we are one big community ROFLLL (well sort of).

kingston277:
As ezeagu stated it can work, but a single-ethnic set up is more economical, politically-friendly, an has yielded more examples of success.

sure it does but only if it is big enough and has the resources to compete with the outside world. Do you think a Yoruba, an Igbo state could compete with the rest of the world? There is not a single African ethnic group that control vast land and resources to do that.
Which is why I do believe giving up foreign policy, currency and army to a larger union is our best bet. The rest could be left to the ethnic groups.
Could you imagine, an Igbo president negotiating trade deals with the representative of the EU?

kingston277:
Still doesn't excuse thte fact that you condem 19th century Africans for an extremely common world wide trade. Sure its bad now, but back then(and even now), their only real crime was the scale at which it took place.

world wide trade with only Africans as the human commodity. We lost on this trade, however you look at it. We did not get anything valuable from it.

We should forget about a common west african language because no ethnic will allow another ethnic's language to be value above its. We can only opt for an africanized english.
The issue of trade by making a system of giving every african state free access to the sea should be explore. The issue of common currency should also be explore but national currency should be allow to flow together with the common ones.
A common army can also be organized but not without a national and state guard equivalent.
A common foreign policy should be build.
Problem
How can we create a community which every group of people will recognize its leadership and which will carry along every group of people?.
If we are to have a united west africa, we will have to divide it into more states, how will we settle the problem of land ownership
How do we protect the right of minorities

reedonne:
We should forget about a common west african language because no ethnic will allow another ethnic's language to be value above its. We can only opt for an africanized english.

this surprises me with Africans, we can accept English, a foreign language from Europeans that used to dominate us and did us a great deal of evil, but we will refuse the language of another African ethnic group.

Omarbah:
this surprises me with Africans, we can accept English, a foreign language from Europeans that used to dominate us and did us a great deal of evil, but we will refuse the language of another African ethnic group.

This is due to severe inferiority complex and i have mentioned this before on these forums. People are more likely to accept torture and abuse from a white guy than they would from another African/black person.

If a white person is throwing and shoving their culture down a Nigerian's throat they think it's ok, but heck when another African is doing it, to them it's not ok. I've brought this double standard up on numerous occasions years back. I don't mind what the official language of Nigeria is, but let it be an African language for crying out loud. We are not white men or women. But a lot of people here associate acting like a European to be cool and progressive. They associate anything African with being backwards. That's why I think it's important you educate these people because more than 50% of them are absolutely in a state of no return.

Reading through the long drawn out debate between kingston and omarbah it is clear that kingston has a better grasp of the situation. Omarbah your viewpoints are very unrealistic overly idealistic.

This is my take on the situation.

Democratic multi-ethnic states do not work and never will work, the natural state of human progress is the strong consuming the weak and then incorporating them into larger states. At the time of the Romans Europe was divided into hundreds of thousand distinct ethnic groups, each with separate languages and customs. Germany alone was inhabited by the saxones, venedii, gepidi, burgondionii, bla bla bla and they each spoke a different language, had a different culture and hated each other. After hundreds of years of warfare they ended up as one people with one language.

Africa at the other hand was brought into modern times in its dark age, and the natural progression of history was halted via colonization and artificial borders. Now we are stuck in this archaic state with thousands of pointless ethnic groups, languages and nationalities in 2014 and it is a massive barrier to progress.

pleep: Reading through the long drawn out debate between kingston and omarbah it is clear that kingston has a better grasp of the situation. Omarbah your viewpoints are very unrealistic overly idealistic.

This is my take on the situation.

Democratic multi-ethnic states do not work and never will work, the natural state of human progress is the strong consuming the weak and then incorporating them into larger states. At the time of the Romans Europe was divided into hundreds of thousand distinct ethnic groups, each with separate languages and customs. Germany alone was inhabited by the saxones, venedii, gepidi, burgondionii, bla bla bla and they each spoke a different language, had a different culture and hated each other. After hundreds of years of warfare they ended up as one people with one language.

Africa at the other hand was brought into modern times in its dark age, and the natural progression of history was halted via colonization and artificial borders. Now we are stuck in this archaic state with thousands of pointless ethnic groups, languages and nationalities in 2014 and it is a massive barrier to progress.

You either never stepped foot in Africa or you truly are a westerner, a black westerner that is. I realized that when you asked why Mansa Musa did not use his gold to conquer Arabs. Always thinking that greatness is achieved by forcing others to do something we'd like.
You can't take the example of the Romans or other Europeans and apply it to Africans, we are different people with different cultures. The way I see it, the utopia is in believing an monoethnic state would protect an ethnic group in Africa from foreign dominance.

kingston277:

Sure, But guess what. How did those states get so big in the first place? You really don't think most of the ethnic groups (states, really) just polity let Mali or Songhai lord over them did you? In order for said states to get so big, they conquered and pillaged other kingdoms to take over their land. I would have recommend the same thing for Africa today if there wasn't the whole slaughtering/carnage problem and the UN breathing down the necks of aspiring 21st century conquistadors.

Pretty much hits the nail on this head. Africa at the time of colonization was in its dark age, and remained frozen in that state due to artificial borders and colonization.

The only way for africa to break free of this state would be warfare and conquest, through which the stronger ethnic groups would incorporate the weak and grow strong in both national identity and size. That is the natural state of human progress. This, however, would never be allowed to occur due to humanitarian concerns and western interference.

That is the reason i advocate unconventional methods of progres, because so long as africa looks like the map above natural progress will never occur.

pleep: Pretty much hits the nail on this head. Africa at the time of colonization was in its dark age, and remained frozen in that state due to artificial borders and colonization.

The only way for africa to break free of this state would be warfare and conquest, through which the stronger ethnic groups would incorporate the weak and grow strong in both national identity and size.
That is the natural state of human progress. This, however, would never be allowed to occur due to humanitarian concerns and western interference.

That is the reason i advocate unconventional methods of progres, because so long as africa looks like the map above natural progress will never occur.

and I am the one that has an idealistic view on things. Those days are long dead. The Europeans loved war, heck the dragged the world in two of their wars but even they have decided to unite through peace. Where Napoleon and Hitler have failed, the peaceful EU will gradually achieve success.
The last thing we need is war. South Sudan broke from Sudan, nobody thought that after decades of struggle against the North, they would start fighting each other and yet they are. Let that be a lesson.

bro do you realize that there are more ethnic groups in nigeria alone than in all of Europe?

Ethnic diversity = chaos.

Why do u think that Europe's poorest and most unstable region (the East and balkan region) also happens to be its most diverse region? Ethnic diversity is the enemy of unity and the enemy of progress and has been the downfall of Africans for all our history.

When they colonizers came to Africa all they had to do was pit one tribe against another, sell one tribe guns and let them destroy and enslave their neighbors. Could they do this in China? no, because china was ethnically one, could they do this in japan? no because japan was ethnically one. Open your eyes as see how ethnically homogenous region progress 1000X faster.

pleep: bro do you realize that there are more ethnic groups in nigeria alone than in all of Europe?

Ethnic diversity = chaos.

Why do u think that Europe's poorest and most unstable region (the East and balkan region) also happens to be its most diverse region? Ethnic diversity is the enemy of unity and the enemy of progress and has been the downfall of Africans for all our history.

When they colonizers came to Africa all they had to do was pit one tribe against another, sell one tribe guns and let them destroy and enslave their neighbors. Could they do this in China? no, because china was ethnically one, could they do this in japan? no because japan was ethnically one. Open your eyes as see how ethnically homogenous region progress 1000X faster.

Wrong.
Let say we have a yoruba nation, the itshekiris, ekiti, okun, ife, ijesha, igbomina, egba, etc will start competeting for power, which will end up dividing us into tribes.
If we decide to give each tribe a nation, tribes will divide into regions, clans and muinicipalities

pleep: bro do you realize that there are more ethnic groups in nigeria alone than in all of Europe?


When they colonizers came to Africa all they had to do was pit one tribe against another, sell one tribe guns and let them destroy and enslave their neighbors. Could they do this in China? no, because china was ethnically one, could they do this in japan? no because japan was ethnically one. Open your eyes as see how ethnically homogenous region progress 1000X faster.

China was ethnically one: yes, but they can be clasify into many sub groups. Example are: zhang, han,hui, manchu, miao etc
It is very easy to divide any group whether homogenous or not. Just give weapon to greedy people and they will help you destroy their people.
Even in pre colonial times, africa tribal city state attack another city-state of the same tribe. An example is the Ibadan and the Ekiti parapo war.

Omarbah:
this surprises me with Africans, we can accept English, a foreign language from Europeans that used to dominate us and did us a great deal of evil, but we will refuse the language of another African ethnic group.

English have already became an international language, even monoethnic states like korean and japan still learn english as a compulsory subject.
It is not about accepting an europian language, but about having a language that will make us understand each other and at the sametime help us to be able to communicate with the outside world easily.

I would have to agree that mono-ethnic countries have a better chance of success than their multi-ethnic counterparts.

At least it's one less problem (i.e. ethnic tensions) to worry about.

If Western and Northern Europe can thrive with several small and ethnic countries (i.e. france for the french, sweden for the swedes, etc), I don't see why this should not be the case for Africa.

Is a Swedish president from a mono-ethnic country of 10 million people inherently more suited to UN trade deals than an Igbo or Yoruba president (with potential mono-ethnic national populations of 30-ish million)?

chulla12: I would have to agree that mono-ethnic countries have a better chance of success than their multi-ethnic counterparts.

At least it's one less problem (i.e. ethnic tensions) to worry about.

If Western and Northern Europe can thrive with several small and ethnic countries (i.e. france for the french, sweden for the swedes, etc), I don't see why this should not be the case for Africa.

Is a Swedish president from a mono-ethnic country of 10 million people inherently more suited to UN trade deals than an Igbo or Yoruba president (with potential mono-ethnic national populations of 30-ish million)?

What about an igbira president with less than a million citizen?, what about itshikiri, urhobo, ikwerre etc.
Or are you contemplating joing itshikiri with yoruba and ikwerre with igbo?.
Do you think inter-ethnic tension will reduce when we have a yoruba nation?. Do you think the igbominas(one of smallest yoruba tribe) will accept to be sidelined from power for a long time?.
Do you think their wont be internal crisis in monoethnice states. Have you ever heard of the IFE-MADAKEKE war(both yoruba of ife origin)?.
Our ethnic groups look like one because everybody is competeting for the top job, when we start competeting for a ethnic leadership, we will see how divided each ethnic group is.
To an average america, Africa is one entity with the same kind of people.
To an average ghananian, Nigeria is a nation, he doesnt know about igbo, hausa or yoruba, to an average hausa, yoruba is one. That is how everything is.
We all see the position of tribe in osun's election when aregbesola won his ijesha tribe and omisore won his ife tribe, it is the position of other yoruba tribe in osun that decide the outcome of the election.

There are several well run countries below 200,000 in
population.

I'd say to allow any group (no matter how insignificant you find them) to break away if they are fine with self rule.

I never said that every mono-ethnic country will be perfect. But there will be significant improvement in cohesion among the people.

An Ife-Modakeke crisis will be easier contained than a Tiv-Fulani struggle, IMO. Sometimes we have to quantify the various degrees of our cultural differences to understand what works and what doesn't.

In any case, smaller countries mean smaller problems.

reedonne:
What about an igbira president with less than a million citizen?, what about itshikiri, urhobo, ikwerre etc.
Or are you contemplating joing itshikiri with yoruba and ikwerre with igbo?.
Do you think inter-ethnic tension will reduce when we have a yoruba nation?. Do you think the igbominas(one of smallest yoruba tribe) will accept to be sidelined from power for a long time?.
Do you think their wont be internal crisis in monoethnice states. Have you ever heard of the IFE-MADAKEKE war(both yoruba of ife origin)?.
Our ethnic groups look like one because everybody is competeting for the top job, when we start competeting for a ethnic leadership, we will see how divided each ethnic group is.
To an average america, Africa is one entity with the same kind of people.
To an average ghananian, Nigeria is a nation, he doesnt know about igbo, hausa or yoruba, to an average hausa, yoruba is one. That is how everything is.
We all see the position of tribe in osun's election when aregbesola won his ijesha tribe and omisore won his ife tribe, it is the position of other yoruba tribe in osun that decide the outcome of the election.

Fulaman198:

This is due to severe inferiority complex and i have mentioned this before on these forums. People are more likely to accept torture and abuse from a white guy than they would from another African/black person.

English have already established itself as a world language, so we have no choice than to accept it so that we can be able to communicate with more people. Even the mono ethnic chinese, japan and SK cannot do without english.

If a white person is throwing and shoving their culture down a Nigerian's throat they think it's ok, but heck when another African is doing it, to them it's not ok. I've brought this double standard up on numerous occasions years back. I don't mind what the official language of Nigeria is, but let it be an African language for crying out loud.

Let say Ijaw is our official language, I will have to learn Ijaw to speak with other Nigerian and English to communicate with outside world, when I can just learn my mother tongue to speak with my people and english to communicate with others.
Nigeria may have 10 official language , but our working language should be pidgin/english.
As for the issue of culture, adopting english language doesnt make us forget our culture, as long as we prioritize our local language and culture.

chulla12: There are several well run countries below 200,000 in
population.

Ofcourse, even the smallest countries are the best in africa eg: mauritius, sychelles and cape verde

I'd say to allow any group (no matter how insignificant you find them) to break away if they are fine with self rule.

Then what happens?. Do you think a small country can dare disrespect Nigeria talkless of europe, have you forgotting how Nigeria force benin republic to release Asari-dokunbo?. Small country will be too powerless to make agreement on equal scale with powerful countries

I never said that every mono-ethnic country will be better. But there will be significant improvement in cohesion among the people.

An Ife-Modakeke crisis will be easier contained than a Tiv-Fulani struggle, IMO. Sometimes we have to quantify the various degrees of our cultural differences to understand what works and what doesn't.

Yes in a multi-ethnic state, but in a mono ethnic state, the tribes will start acting like the ethnic. Tribal or clannish war will become ethnic-war, an example is somalia.

In any case, smaller countries mean smaller problems.

Why not devolve power to municipalities, pronvince and states?. It will achieve the same result as building smaller nations.
The fact is the biggest source of inter-ethnic war is politics, we need a political solution not disintegrations.

Omarbah:
that is due to the history of political "conflicts". Fulanis and Maninkas do not get along in Guinea, but cross the border to Liberia or Cote d'Ivoire, they act as if they are one community.
If every single person no matter the ethnic group could have a shot a ruling Nigeria since 1962, many of the so called differences between Nigerians would not exist. Doesn't Northern Nigerian society, despite the multiplicity of ethnic group has a sort of mainstream culture?

The argument is becoming convoluted. We've already established that we're talking about a common culture not mono-ethnicity or homogeneity. So to talk about Northern Nigeria doesn't hinder the point that people work better with a common culture. You seem to be in the 'what if' instead of focusing on what's happening now. Northern Nigeria's sense of cohesiveness away from wider Nigeria further serves the point that you generally need some sort of common culture to be cohesive.

Lol. Liberia and Cote d'Ivoire are bloody war torn.

chulla12: I would have to agree that mono-ethnic countries have a better chance of success than their multi-ethnic counterparts.
At least it's one less problem (i.e. ethnic tensions) to worry about.

True if they have a large population and resources at their disposal. Could you imagine just within Nigeria, how many tiny states will be born out of this? Let alone the whole of West Africa.

chulla12:
If Western and Northern Europe can thrive with several small and ethnic countries (i.e. france for the french, sweden for the swedes, etc), I don't see why this should not be the case for Africa.

they did thrive but times are different today. None of those states except Germany due to its high end manufacturing, can compete thus the need to be a member of the EU.

chulla12:
Is a Swedish president from a mono-ethnic country of 10 million people inherently more suited to UN trade deals than an Igbo or Yoruba president (with potential mono-ethnic national populations of 30-ish million)?

Not only there was a debate on whether or not, Sweden would do better by breaking out of the UK but even when independence became a probable outcome, they were talking about joining the EU. Being part of a bigger union is out of necessity.

These are what african needs.
The universities
We have more than 100 universities in Nigeria but none of them have come out with a solution for our political problem, it is really disheartening. We have seen many report from foreign university about african problem, but african university seems to be dedicated to teaching us what have already been created by others.
If we want a cultural renaissance, we need to involve our education. Let us forget about western education type, and create our own system atleast it will encourage more people to read. Let us include our culture in our education.
I read about a NAZI propaganda subject during WW2, why cant we do something like this too. Encourage our young people to explore from their early primary education. Tell our people how we are superior to others and how we must show this superiority by innovating ideas. Use education and media to make europe looks like an immoral place where everything is bad.
We should use primary school to learn about culture, disscipline, community, national superiority, language,proper physical and health care, national language and mathematics.



We should use middle education to learn about law, civic responsibility, patroism, english, community order and discipline and business study.
We should use secondary education to learn about introduction to engineering, medicines, and other profession.
With this, our people have been orientated on community life since primary school (imagine our people learning to keep their house and community clean from primary school, learning community discipline from primary school and then proceed to learn law and civic responsibility in middle school, we wont need WAI lol).
They have also learnt about ethnic superiority from primary school and patroism from secondary school, so when they finish their university, they will try to proof their superiority to the whole world by inventing new things.

ezeagu:

The argument is becoming convoluted. We've already established that we're talking about a common culture not mono-ethnicity or homogeneity. So to talk about Northern Nigeria doesn't hinder the point that people work better with a common culture. You seem to be in the 'what if' instead of focusing on what's happening now. Northern Nigeria's sense of cohesiveness away from wider Nigeria further serves the point that you generally need some sort of common culture to be cohesive.

Lol. Liberia and Cote d'Ivoire are bloody war torn.

Again , common culture can be built if the political power is shared and every group is represented. The common culture doesn't just happen, it is something built overtime. If all the regions of Nigeria were sharing power since its conceptions, ethnic differences would not be as strong as they are today. I gave you the example of Senegal which is ethnically diverse but does have a common culture built over the years.

Cote d'Ivoire is hardly war torn, yes they did have a civil war but that did not let to the massive destruction of infrastructure. Their economy grew by 9.8% in 2012 and 8.3% in 2013. And the African Development Bank just transferred its seat there from Tunisia, I don't think they would've done so if it was "war torn". Liberia on the other hand is in really shape. But that's besides the point, the war in those two countries did not oppose Fulanis and Maninkas. Both groups were treated as foreigners in those two countries. They actually had to work together.

The office of the president is the biggest source of division in Nigeria, instead of division, we should instead remove that office