THE NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR: AN UNCOMMON REVOLUTION

Kate McKeough (WHS)

Revolutions have long been the defining factors of our nations, societies, and cultures. They are turning points in our histories, and points of nationalist pride or deeprooted resentment. However, the revolutions we recount time and time again are so often Eurocentric iterations of the same rivalries played out in different regions. In Nigeria, though, the revolution and ensuing civil war of the 1960s was a striking culmination of global tensions, the effects of decolonisation in an increasingly televised world, and a medical revolution in itself.

In 1914, the United Kingdom decided to amalgamate their Western African colonies of the Northern Protectorate, Lagos colony, and the Southern Nigeria protectorate. The logic was to streamline administration and make ruling the colonies easier due to their proximity. As was often the case in the British empire, the local groups and their ethnic, cultural, and religious boundaries were disregarded, leading to unsurprising clashes and increasing tensions. These tensions were only exacerbated by political and economic power contests. When Nigeria gained independence from the UK in 1960, it had over 300 different cultural groups and a population of over 60 million [4]. The process of decolonisation was messy and despite Britain’s efforts to unify the three distinct regions under a central government, strain was still evident between them. The three largest ethnic groups were the Igbo (60-70% of the population in the southeast), the Hausa (65% of the population in the northern territory), and the Yoruba (75% of the population in the southwest) [4]. By the time of independence, the three major ethnic groups had significant populations in all the major cities.

However, the three regions had been governed in disparate ways before independence and continued to operate differently after they were united as the nation of Nigeria. Specifically, the Igbos of the southeast quickly became the educated, westernised population of Nigeria. Their population had been disproportionately affected by the Atlantic Slave Trade, and so had been finding ways to grow and persevere as a region since the late sixteenth century. Unlike the North, which was essentially closed to Christian missionaries and European influence, the Igbo people were the most literate and had the most European ideas in their society. This post-colonial impact on the Igbo people increased the chasm between them and the rest of Nigeria. As tensions rose throughout the 1960s, the Igbo people became increasingly persecuted in the North and began to flee to the East. From June to October 1966, anywhere between 8,000 and 30,000 people fled from the North due to regular and brutal massacres of their people [3]. At the same time, non-Igbos were expelled from the East and resistance groups began to unify. On May 30 1967, the Igbo resistance declared independence from Nigeria as the secessionist state of Biafra. The ensuing civil war between the Nigerian government and the Republic of Biafra was violent and incredibly damaging. It is estimated that almost 2 million Biafrans, three quarters of which were children, died from starvation because of the Nigerian government’s blockade [5]. The Nigerian government defeated the Biafran army in January 1970, but the impacts of the war are still felt generations later.

While the war itself is gripping and important in its own right, it is not the battle strategies which make it revolutionary. The Biafran revolution holds significance in its precise timing and the way it engrossed global populations. The revolution was happening simultaneously to the Civil Rights movement in the US, which meant that the Western atmosphere was full of growing awareness about human rights and the need to fight for them. This idea was capitalised upon by the expanding capabilities and reach of television. We often think of the Vietnam War as the first truly televised war – which is broadly true. However, the Biafran war brought images of suffering and starvation to a Western audience in a way never seen before. Public investment in the revolution was so great that in November 1969, John Lennon returned his MBE medal to the Queen to protest Britain’s involvement in the war. The media surrounding the Nigerian Civil war can also be credited with creating the trope of ‘starving African children.’ NGOs and charities used this notion to raise money and crafted their international communications to garner sympathy for Biafra. Ideas of white saviourism in widespread media have some roots in the messaging

that came from the Biafran revolution. The republic of Biafra was officially recognized by Gabon, Haiti, the Ivory Coast, Tanzania, and Zambia. More significantly, it was given support and assistance by France, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Rhodesia, South Africa, and the Vatican City [3]. This wide range of European countries offering aid to a region that was fighting against its post-colonial role was astounding. Controversially, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union were the main supporters of the Nigerian government and supplied them with arms throughout the war.

The global involvement in the revolution didn’t stop at media interest. Vaccine shortages during the Biafra smallpox campaign led to the development of the focal vaccination technique. This technique was adopted by the WHO and the UN, and helped create an early and cost efficient disruption of smallpox transmission in West Africa [1]. It also led to research which showed that Igbo people born in Biafra during the famine were prone to a higher risk of obesity, hypertension, and impaired glucose metabolism [3]. This work has been monumental in helping fight starvation and hunger in Africa and globally. It supported the hypothesis that malnutrition early in life was a direct factor in cardiovascular diseases and diabetes later in life. Furthermore, a 2017 study examined the effects of the Biafran war on various aspects of the Biafran population. It found that exposure to consistent education lessens the impacts of war exposure, and that war-exposed men are more likely to marry later and have less children. Most notably, it found that war exposure on mothers had very detrimental effects on their children’s growth, survival, and education [3].

Biafra’s brief revolution and independence may not be what first comes to mind when we think of a traditional revolution. However, it was not just a Nigerian turning point, but an international one too. The Nigerian Civil war showed the consequences of careless decolonisation, while exposing a wider and more Western audience than ever before to the conflicts of Africa. It also led to a great deal of medical and psychological breakthroughs which helped progress medicine in developing countries. Biafra represented so much more than a group of people fighting for independence - it is a snapshot of the world’s mentality and attitude in a tumultuous time.

Bibliography

[1] “Buried for 50 Years: Britain’s Shameful Role in the Biafran War | Frederick Forsyth.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 21 Jan. 2020, www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/21/ buried-50-years-britain-shamesful-role-biafran-warfrederick-forsyth. [2] Fenner, Frank. Smallpox and Its Eradication. World Health Organization, 1988.

[3] Hult, Martin, et al. “Hypertension, Diabetes and Overweight: Looming Legacies of the Biafran Famine.” PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, 22 Oct. 2010, journals.plos.org/plosone/ article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013582.

[4] “Nigerian Civil War.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 22 Apr. 2021, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Nigerian_Civil_War.

[5] “Why Study about Biafra?: AHA.” Why Study about Biafra? | AHA, American Historical Association, www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/teachingresources-for-historians/teaching-and-learning-in-thedigital-age/through-the-lens-of-history-biafra-nigeriathe-west-and-the-world/why-study-about-biafra.