Ukpaka

SEPARATION IS NOT ABOUT WAR, IT HAS PEACEFUL ASPECT.

In 1776, the USA split from the UK
In 1830 Belgium separated from
the Netherlands
In 1965, Singapore split off from Malaysia.
in 2002, East Timor got split off from Indonesia.
In 1921, Ireland split off from the United Kingdom, and (possibly in the future) there will be secession of Scotland.
In 1944, Iceland split from Denmark with remarkable ease.
In 1905 Norway split from Denmark.
In 1905, Norway and Sweden also peacefully split ways. One got the car. the other got the kids.

In 1947, the British India Dominion was partitioned into India n Pakistan.
In 1971, Bangladesh secceeded from Pakistan.
In 1992-93, the two parts of Czechoslovakia agreed to each go their own way. Thus were born the Czech Republic and Slovakia after what's been named the “Velvet Divorce”. About the same time, another kind of separation occurred, of course, in Yugoslavia. This one led to a bloodshed.

in 1965, Singapore split from Malaysia for a variety of reasons, including religious (Malaysia is majority Muslim, Singapore isn't), ethnic/racial (Singapore has a very large majority Chinese population) and concerns over the Malaysian Bumiputra policy, which was (and is) basically a form of "Affirmative Action" for Muslim Malaysians - who make up the majority population in Peninsular Malaysia.
Ethiopia and Eritrea
Sudan and South Sudan are now separate countries
USSR is now broken down into several countries.

I see separation as an avenue for a healthy competition for development as the case of Singapore and Malaysia, India and Pakistan, Norway/Denmark/Switzerland.
In the case of Nigeria, I am sensing a healthy competitive development among the original component part, the North/West/East each making useful progress while competing with the others.
It is not about war after all there is nothing wrong for one to decide he is no longer comfortable with the union and therefore want to opt out.

LETS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE AND SEPARATE HONORABLY.
This is worth sharing over and over again...
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?

MY CONCLUSION :

When many commentators read and repost or share your articles with many of their friends and contacts, they do so because they want others to learn.

NIGERIA'S 36 STATES & FCT RANKED IN ORDER OF LAND SURFACE AREA (KM²)*

1. Niger State 76,363KM²
2. Borno State 70,898KM²
3. Taraba State 54,473KM²
4. Kaduna State 46,053KM²
5. Bauchi State 45,837KM²
6. Yobe State 45,502KM²
7. Zamfara State 39,762KM²
8. Adamawa State 36,917KM²
9. Kwara State 36,825KM²
10. Kebbi State 36,800KM²
11. Benue State 34,059KM²
12. Plateau State 30,913KM²
13. Kogi State 29,833KM²
14. Oyo State 28,454KM²
15. Nasarawa State 27,117KM²
16. Sokoto State 25,973KM²
17. Katsina State 24,192KM²
18. Jigawa State 23,154KM²
19. Cross River State 20,156KM²
20. Kano State 20,131KM²
21. Gombe State 18,768KM²
22. Edo State 17,802KM²
23. Delta State 17,698KM²
24. Ogun State 16,762KM²
25. Ondo State 15,500KM²
26. Rivers State 11,077KM²
27. Bayelsa State 10,773KM²
28. Osun State 9,251KM²
29. Federal Capital Territory
7,315KM²
30. Enugu State 7,161KM²
31. Akwa Ibom State 7,081KM²
32. Ekiti State 6,353KM²
33. Abia State 6,320KM²
34. Ebonyi State 5,670KM²
35. Imo State 5,530KM²
36. Anambra State 4,844KM²
37. Lagos State 3,345KM²
Anambra + Enugu + Abia + Imo + Ebonyi = 29,525KM²
Kogi = 29,833KM²
Ogun + Oyo + Osun + Ondo + Ekiti = 76,320KM²
Lagos = 3,345KM²
Niger alone = 76,363KM²
Niger State = Entire Southwest States - Lagos
*The entire Southeast
is a little less than Kogi State only.

JUST FOR OUR RECORD
The North Has enough land for ranching and cattle colony.

We in the South West have little land mass. PLEASE LET US BE; LEAVE US ALONE TO MANAGE THE LITTLE LAND WE HAVE

GLOBAL CATTLE BUSINESS: FACT SHEET
A. Top 10 NATIONS in terms of Cattle inventory (2017).
1. INDIA 303 million
2. BRAZIL 226 million
3. CHINA 100 million.
4. USA 93 million.
5. EU 89 million.
6. ARGENTINA 53 million
7. AUSTRALIA 27 million
8. RUSSIA 18 million
9. MEXICO 16 million
10. TURKEY 14 million.
B. TOP 10 MILK EXPORTERS
1. NEW ZEALAND $4.4 Billion
2. GERMANY $2.6 Billion
3. NETHERLANDS $1.9 Billion
4. FRANCE $1.5 Billion
5. USA $1.4 Billion
6. BELGIUM $1.2 Billion
7. AUSTRALIA $852 Million
8. BELARUS $637 Million
9. UK $569 Million
10. SAUDI ARABIA $556 Million
C. TOP 10 BEEF EXPORTING NATIONS (2016).
1. AUSTRALIA $5.6 Billion
2. USA $5.2 Billion
3. BRAZIL $4.3 Billion
4. INDIA $3.7 Billion
5. NETHERLANDS $2.7 Billion
6. IRELAND $2 Billion
7. NEW ZEALAND $1.9 Billion
8. CANADA $1.5 Billion
9. URUGUAY $1.4 Billion
10. GERMANY $1.3 Billion

Additional Considerations:
1. Nigeria is not among the top 20
nations in the global cattle
business.
2. Non of the top cattle producing
nations create cattle colonies or
engage in primitive cattle grazing.
All the top cattle producing and
exporting nations utilise modern
technology and ranching methods
to maximise production and profit.
3. Non of the top nations earning
billions of dollars annually from
the cattle business condone the
killing of citizens for cattle.
4. Nigeria's cattle business requires
a complete re-think now and not
later, for posterity's sake.
Knowledge is power.
Share to educate our leaders and citizens!

Africa: The Hungry Cow that Produces Enough Milk to Feed the World😟

By Charles Bassey

This hungry cow is not hungry because she has no food within her yard; neither is she hungry because she is incapable of generating enough food on her table. The simple truth is that, this cow is hungry because an iron-lock has been placed on her head to cover her mouth. At the same time, her children are threatened against their lives to accept what they obviously know to be unacceptable. Hence, the hungry cow we see today.

Sadly, those who milk Africa every day are not just greedy people who seek selfish benefit from her riches; they are also wicked monsters who join efforts to starve her so that they can derive happiness and pleasure from the sighting of her suffering and pain.

Let us start by giving deep considerations to the following: For more than 60 years of Independence, no African country is allowed to trade their naturally endowed resources in their own sovereign currencies to ensure that true values of those resources are translated into economic development and empowerment on the African continent.

Any attempt by any African leader to break this global economic system that has deliberately designed and instituted to keep Africa under unending poverty is either assassinated or removed from power, hence, the need for all power-holders on the African continent to be quiet while observing the future of the next generations destroyed in an arm-folding. The real threat did not start with Patrice Lumumba of DR Congo or Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso; neither did it end with the sad removal and assassination of our dear Brother Gaddafi, all of us are victims and whoever sort to challenge this system need to be aware of the true consequence.

Today, the masses of Africa are made to believe that they are suffering because of the corrupt nature of their leaders, however, our under development is designed by something far greater than corruption. After all, corruption is even more abundant in the global system than it is on the African continent, I need not to start pointing direct fingers but I know very well what I am talking about.

Here is the real reason why Africa, with all her huge natural and human resources, continue to remain poor and may have to remain as such for a very long time:

When we (Africa) need a car or anything from the colonizers, we work hard to get their monies to pay for our wants; (this means that, whatever we demand from them, we exchange that with our labour which is of equal in value to what we are taking from them. This, in turn, creates value in their economies); when we fail to work in their economy to obtain their currencies, we only have the option of going to the global financial market to put more of our monies on the supply side to demand for their currencies to pay for such wants (when this happens, we create demand for their currencies as a commodity, and once demand for these currencies increases, the value of their currencies also increases), they then gain value on their currencies and we lose value in return.

On the other hand, when they (the World) need our valuable resources, we are told that, we need foreign exchange and as a result, we allow them to print their valueless papers (in a form of money) to exchange for our valuable resources (this means, they take away all our resources without creating any value in our economies).

Imagine, if Africa tell the world that “when you need our Gold, Diamond, Oil and so forth, you must pay for them in our African currencies”, this will mean that the wold will have to come and work on the African continent and create real value such as infrastructure and technology in order to get our currencies to demand for our valuable resources they cannot do without. Other than that, they have to go to the global financial market to demand for our currencies and this will mean that the value of our currencies will increase rather than the depreciation of exchange rates as we experience each day in every part of Africa.

At this stage, let me point out to you that, it costs less than 50 cents to print 100 Dollar or 100 Euros note, but it costs more than 100 dollars to mine 2g of gold from the ground. So how can we genuinely exchange 2g of gold for 50 cents if not for exploitation?

If we allow China, America , Europe or whoever, to demand for our resources with their own paper money, we are basically saying that we have no control of those resources since these people can freely print any amount of those monies to take away those resources of ours. Our economy can generate true value from the huge resources we are endowed with only when our currencies are backed by these resources, and those resources are exchanged in our own sovereign currencies.

Truth must be told, if the worlds are allowed to print their monies to buy our resources then Africa must also be able to print our monies and use them to buy whatever we need from them. If not, then they must also come and work to get our money before using that to buy our resources like we also work for their monies to buy their resources.