Phut:


Nope. I am not agreeing with you that Changi is a shirt. I am letting you know that if you describe Changi as a shirt, then by your line of reasoning, the upper body wear put on by Yoruba men should be described as a shirt as well

Can you make your argument without drawing a parallel with Yoruba? I don't know much about Yoruba traditional attire and I'm not in a position to speak about it.

You'd agree with me that it's a shirt (excerpt from your last post: I would call what they wear a shirt as well). So if you agree it's a shirt (an European styled one), don't you think that regardless of whatever local name you call it, that doesn't negate the fact that it's foreign?

Americans call casual sport shoes: sneakers. Brits call it: trainers. However, does that negate the fact that it's basically the same thing?

Ihuomadinihu:

You have not answered my question yet. What is your definition of an African attire? If it has been acquired or has evolved into an ethnic identity,will you still call it African?

It depends of how you define 'evolved into an ethnic identity'.

Would you call the hat Ijaws/Itsekiris/Urhobos wear as traditional African attire?

semitunde:


Is his argument about fashion being borrowed or that the fashion they have now is not African.

I can see your link in this because you claim that what is borrowed becomes part of the said fashion and therefore African; but then there lies the connundrum.

The Yoruba attires do not have any link to other races outside africa (except maybe those taken there by slaves from same africa); while a quick look at some of the other attires from other countries reveal some parts definitely from outside of Africa.

The fact that Agbada originated from the Songhai empire nullifies its position as autentically yoruba. I don't see how Agbada is a traditional yoruba attire.

semitunde:


Is his argument about fashion being borrowed or that the fashion they have now is not African.

I can see your link in this because you claim that what is borrowed becomes part of the said fashion and therefore African; but then there lies the connundrum.

The Yoruba attires do not have any link to other races outside africa (except maybe those taken there by slaves from same africa); while a quick look at some of the other attires from other countries reveal some parts definitely from outside of Africa.

Yes some Yoruba attire has links to other ethnicities. Case in point: Agbada.

Is Agbada outfit not a 3 piece: trousers, a top which has long sleeves, then the Agbada.

The top with long sleeves, is a shirt by Equalizers definition. Pursuing that line of reasoning some more equals that it is foreign to Africa/Unafrican

TheEqualizer:


It depends of how you define 'evolved into an ethnic identity'.

Would you call the hat Ijaws/Itsekiris/Urhobos wear as traditional African attire?

Why not answer the ijaw hat question first. You are the one going on and on about what is real and fake African.

Ihuomadinihu:

Why not answer the ijaw hat question first. You are the one going on and on about what is real and fake African.

Okay, since you're trying to deflect it so as not to put yourself in a tight spot, I'll answer it.

The hat is foreign and has no semblance to anything African.

Ihuomadinihu:

The fact that Agbada originated from the Songhai empire nullifies its position as autentically yoruba. I don't see how Agbada is a traditional yoruba attire.

What facts do you have to prove such? And if its even any way true, is the Songhai African or not? Cos if its African , then then the agbada still retains its authenticity.

The point again is that some of the attires borrowed from non African dresses and therefore, are losing their African authenticity in the process. He focused on the authenticity of some of the attires as African. You lost that focus.

TheEqualizer:


Can you make your argument without drawing a parallel with Yoruba? I don't know much about Yoruba traditional attire and I'm not in a position to speak about.

You'd agree with me that it's a shirt (excerpt from your last post: I would call what they wear a shirt as well). So if you agree it's a shirt (an European styled one), don't you think that regardless of whatever local name you call it, that doesn't negate the fact that it's foreign?

Americans call casual sport shoes: sneakers. Brits call it: trainers. However, does that negate the fact that it's basically the same thing?

I never agreed with you that it's a shirt.

How many ways can people wear body covering: you can cover your upper body and lower body. Lower body you can cover with trousers or a wrapper as has been earlier discussed. Upper body by wearing a piece of cloth "toga" style or by wearing a "shirt" as you would describe it.
When people have their cultural dressing and even have a name for it, it's wrong to come and dismiss it as a "shirt"
Even the English people that call it a shirt were not the 1st to wear that style of dress.
Using your line of reasoning. Sokoto is just pair of trousers. The inner top is a shirt. Iro and bubba is a blouse and wrapper.
Basically, all I am saying is respect peoples culture and tradition as opposed to being dismissive.

Also in one of your earlier submission, you talked about people creating their own style with foreign fabric. You were okay with that. What stops a Tiv person from saying that what this and that person makes with lace material is Unafrican because it is with foreign fabric, while the black and white stripped material they used is the only real african attire.

Phut:


Yes some Yoruba attire has links to other ethnicities. Case in point: Agbada.

Is Agbada outfit not a 3 piece: trousers, a top which has long sleeves, then the Agbada.

The top with long sleeves, is a shirt by Equalizers definition. Pursuing that line of reasoning some more equals that it is foreign to Africa/Unafrican

See my response above.

semitunde:


What facts do you have to prove such? And if its even any way true, is the Songhai African or not? Cos if its African , then then the agbada still retains its authenticity.

The point again is that some of the attires borrowed from non African dresses and therefore, are losing their African authenticity in the process. He focused on the authenticity of some of the attires as African. You lost that focus.

I don't have any business with the other African attire on this post. I am limiting my discussions to Igbo attire and there is nothing non African about it. If Yoruba borrowed the Agbada and Dashiki shirts and evolved into a yoruba identity,what makes you believe that Igbos had noting close to shirts which is not traced to European influences. Is not like Igbos didn't interact with other Nigerians/Africans before the arrival of the white men. What makes the Igbo attire unAfrican?
What you call shirts may have evolved that is not to say Igbos didn't wear stuffs like that in the past.

semitunde:


What facts do you have to prove such? And if its even any way true, is the Songhai African or not? Cos if its African , then then the agbada still retains its authenticity.

The point again is that some of the attires borrowed from non African dresses and therefore, are losing their African authenticity in the process. He focused on the authenticity of some of the attires as African. You lost that focus.

The Agbada is not authetically, Yoruba, by your line of reasoning.

Where the Songhai's influenced by say the North Africans? Where the North Africans influenced by say, Arabs in the Middle East? There are many peoples that wear billowing robes. Trust me on that.

Fact of the matter is that we can all dismiss each other's attired as shirts, blouses and what not (which is blatantly disrespectful)

TheEqualizer:


Okay, since you're trying to deflect it so as not to put yourself in a tight spot, I'll answer it.

The hat is foreign and has no semblance to anything African.

Basically,those hats were in vogue made from local materials. It's just like saying Europeans brought hats to Africa. The difference right now is that those hats are made from foreign materials. Don't assume you know everything about Africa. As it stands,those hats represent any Ijaw man where ever you see him.

Phut:
Fact of the matter is that we can all dismiss each other's attired as shirts, blouses and what not (which is blatantly disrespectful)

Agbada is shirt.
Sokoto is trouser.
Therefore those styles are UnAfrican.
What they are calling shirt comes in two kinds,the short one for tying a wrapper across one shoulder. And a longer one which is called a robe in English.

Phut:


I never agreed with you that it's a shirt.

You did and I posted the excerpt in my last post. Why are you trying to renegade on your own submission?

How many ways can people wear body covering: you can cover your upper body and lower body. Lower body you can cover with trousers or a wrapper as has been earlier discussed. Upper body by wearing a piece of cloth "toga" style or by wearing a "shirt" as you would describe it.
When people have their cultural dressing and even have a name for it, it's wrong to come and dismiss it as a "shirt"
Even the English people that call it a shirt were not the 1st to wear that style of dress.
Using your line of reasoning. Sokoto is just pair of trousers. The inner top is a shirt. Iro and bubba is a blouse and wrapper.
Basically, all I am saying is respect peoples culture and tradition as opposed to being dismissive.

It's about the style. Even the picture on this look like the classic TM Lewin, Thomas Pink, and Charles Tyrwhitt design of the tailors on Jermyn Street, London. I'm a professional and I'm into shirts, so I know a lot about shirts. If it had been sown in a different style that's quintessentially African, then you might have an argument.

Also in one of your earlier submission, you talked about people creating their own style with foreign fabric. You were okay with that. What stops a Tiv person from saying that what this and that person makes with lace material is Unafrican because it is with foreign fabric, while the black and white stripped material they used is the only real african attire.

This isn't about the fabric used, it's about style/design. That's a Jermyn Street tailors' style/design. There's nothing African about it.

Ihuomadinihu:

Basically,those hats were in vogue made from local materials. It's just like saying Europeans brought hats to Africa. The difference right now is that those hats are made from foreign materials. Don't assume you know everything about Africa. As it stands,those hats represent any Ijaw man where ever you see him.

No, it represents European sailors regardless what local materials they make them from now. That's an European design.

No matter how you make a kilt, it's always going to be Scottish. No matter how you make Kimono, it's always going to be Japanese. No matter how you make kaftan/hijab, it's always going to be arab.

TheEqualizer:


You did and I posted the excerpt in my last post. Why are you trying to renegade on your own submission?



It's about the style. Even the picture on this look like the classic TM Lewin, Thomas Pink, and Charles Tyrwhitt design of the tailors on Jermyn Street, London. I'm a professional and I'm into shirts, so I know a lot about shirts. If it had been sown in a different style that's quintessentially African, then you might have an argument.



This isn't about the fabric used, it's about style/design. That's a Jermyn Street tailors' style/design. There's nothing African about it.

You can keep that opinion to yourself. I have asked you a number of questions concerning African and world attire. What do you know about shirts in Africa. If people decide to revolutionize their wears to suit current fashion,i don't see it becomes non-African. Igbo dress is 100percent African,take it or leave it. Your definition of African attire at this point is myopic.

Ihuomadinihu:

You can keep that opinion to yourself. I have asked you a number of questions concerning African and world attire. What do you know about shirts in Africa. If people decide to revolutionize their wears to suit current fashion,i don't see it becomes non-African. Igbo dress is 100percent African,take it or leave it. Your definition of African attire at this point is myopic.

Yes, as African as the English language is.

You dragged me into Ibo, only to end up lacking substance.

TheEqualizer:


No, it represents European sailors regardless what local materials they make them from now. That's an European design.

No matter how you make a kilt, it's always going to be Scottish. No matter how you make Kimono, it's always going to be Japanese. No matter how you make kaftan/hijab, it's always going to be arab.

Ha! You have issues! If it is borrowed,it becomes non African. If it evolves,it becomes non African. If the design is different it becomes non African.
The style of those hats were worn before any European set foot in Southern Nigeria. Stop confusing yourself.

TheEqualizer:


Yes, as African as the English language is.

You dragged me into Ibo, only to end up lacking substance.

What substance have you made? You defined African attire and decide to muddle up your definition once again.

TheEqualizer:


No, it represents European sailors regardless what local materials they make them from now. That's an European design.

No matter how you make a kilt, it's always going to be Scottish. No matter how you make Kimono, it's always going to be Japanese. No matter how you make kaftan/hijab, it's always going to be arab.

@ The Equalizer, I never called Changi a shirt. Your submission is that it is a shirt (and impliedly Western). My submission to you over and over on this thread is that if you call it a shirt (and therefore Western) there is a whole lot of other Nogerian attires than can be described as shirts and therefore Western.
Sometimes you have to flip things on people to get them to understand.

As for the rest of your post, I am not going to address again. I already highlighted the style difference in Changi and I am not going to do it again.

P.S.what is your traditional attire? Care to share?

Ihuomadinihu:

Ha! You have issues! If it is borrowed,it becomes non African. If it evolves,it becomes non African. If the design is different it becomes non African.
The style of those hats were worn before any European set foot in Southern Nigeria. Stop confusing yourself.

Hahahahaha.

If they wore those hats before any European set foot in Southern Nigeria, then they were also called: D1ckson, Jonathan, Goodluck et al before any European set foot in South Nigeria. English language is also their mother tongue.

TheEqualizer:


You did and I posted the excerpt in my last post. Why are you trying to renegade on your own submission?



It's about the style. Even the picture on this look like the classic TM Lewin, Thomas Pink, and Charles Tyrwhitt design of the tailors on Jermyn Street, London. I'm a professional and I'm into shirts, so I know a lot about shirts. If it had been sown in a different style that's quintessentially African, then you might have an argument.



This isn't about the fabric used, it's about style/design. That's a Jermyn Street tailors' style/design. There's nothing African about it.

it's not about the fabric right.
Hats: the fabric is not African,so that is valid.
The style has been existing before the white man.
So how is it unAfrican again?
Going by your analogy,nothing is African.
Sorry,go and sleep. Your arguements holds no water,you are running in circles.

Phut:


@ The Equalizer, I never called Changi a shirt. Your submission is that it is a shirt (and impliedly Western). My submission to you over and over on this thread is that if you call it a shirt (and therefore Western) there is a whole lot of other Nogerian attires than can be described as shirts and therefore Western.
Sometimes you have to flip things on people to get them to understand.
Now, what is your traditional attire? Care to share?

It's a an European styled shirt. This is a Thomas Pink shirt design below (compare the design with what the Ibo groom is wearing and you'll see that they're basically the same):



Also, look at the cufflinks. Are they also African?

I don't have a traditional attire. I'm a black man and I don't do tribal identity.

Ihuomadinihu:

it's not about the fabric right.
Hats: the fabric is not African,so that is valid.
The style has been existing before the white man.
So how is it unAfrican again?
Going by your analogy,nothing is African.
Sorry,go and sleep. Your arguements holds no water,you are running in circles.

TheEqualizer:


Hahahahaha.

If they wore those hats before any European set foot in Southern Nigeria, then they were also called: D1ckson, Jonathan, Goodluck et al before any European set foot in South Nigeria. English language is also their mother tongue.

We are not discussing about English names.
Let me address this properly.
Africans/Ijaws have been tying wrapper before the white man.
Currently the design and type of wrapper in 17th century is different from what we are tying now.
A popular wrapper amongst the Ijaw is called the George wrapper.
It's design and style is indian,it is populary called the Madras over there.
But it is exclusively a Southern Nigerian wrapper although it's fabric and design comes from India.
I guess it is now Non African in your confused mind.
The crux of the matter is that the hats and wrapper are African but they are imported and designed by other people,yet it doesn't mean Africans had no wrapper or hats before its importation.
OMG!
Confused mind.

TheEqualizer:


It's a an European styled shirt. This is a Thomas Pink shirt design below (compare the design with what the Ibo groom is wearing and you'll see that they're basically the same):



Also, look at the cufflinks. Are they also African?

I don't have a traditional attire. I'm a black man and I don't do tribal identity.

Accessory is not attire,my friend!
We are taking about full attires. Igbo shirts can go with or without cuffs,those are modern emblishments not exclusive to anyone. How does it make it unafrican. The modern designer beads that women wear to complement their attire are UnAfrican. The shoes you wear are unAfrican. The modern Nigerian Headgear is unafrican. You have to stick to one definition,you are no longer making sense.

Ihuomadinihu:

We are not discussing about English names.
Let me address this properly.
Africans/Ijaws have been tying wrapper before the white man.
Currently the design and type of wrapper in 17th century is different from what we are tying now.
A popular wrapper amongst the Ijaw is called the George wrapper.
It's design and style is indian,it is populary called the Madras over there.
But it is exclusively a Southern Nigerian wrapper although it's fabric and design comes from India.
I guess it is now Non African in your confused mind.
The crux of the matter is that the hats and wrapper are African but they are imported and designed by other people,yet it doesn't mean Africans had no wrapper or hats before its importation.
OMG!
Confused mind.

Facepalm. When was the last time you took an IQ test? I doubt your IQ is up to 60 (maximum) based on all your incoherent submissions. No pun intended.

What has wrapper got to do with European styled hats? Do Indians also tie wrappers? So why are you dragging that into the discourse when I already gave an example with Ghana kente being of Chinese origin, but since the way they wear them (style they use it for) is different from the Chinese, it's African. And I even went further with an example of cotton which isn't European and European clothes.

Perhaps, you don't understand the word 'style', huh?

TheEqualizer:


I don't have a traditional attire. I'm a black man and I don't do tribal identity.

Stop fibbing and tell us what your traditional attire is or which one you identify with.

A black man with no traditional attire, no ethnic identity and who chooses not to identify with any ethnic group will not give a rats arse about what is African or Unafrican, which is what you have been all about on this thread.
Also, most people do not wear Changi with a cuff link. Most times, the sleeve falls some where between the elbow and wrist and is loose. But some of our traditional attires are sometimes worn with "cover" shoes not sandals. Does that make what their ensemble Unafrican?
You know what, lemme back up a bit. Are sandals with buckles, African? Did we have/make buckles back then or did we just wear slippers?

Ihuomadinihu:

I don't have any business with the other African attire on this post. I am limiting my discussions to Igbo attire and there is nothing non African about it. If Yoruba borrowed the Agbada and Dashiki shirts and evolved into a yoruba identity,what makes you believe that Igbos had noting close to shirts which is not traced to European influences. Is not like Igbos didn't interact with other Nigerians/Africans before the arrival of the white men. What makes the Igbo attire unAfrican?
What you call shirts may have evolved that is not to say Igbos didn't wear stuffs like that in the past.

Oh but the person you quoted wasn't limiting his arguement to just Igbo wears. You only didn't read well to understand it. I read his post and I got what he was saying. You're the one who actually made it an Igbo ( and by extension, Yoruba) thing.

Saying agbada or dansiki is shirt is akin to saying all wars are shirts. Both of those wears have nothing to do with shirts.

Secondly the sòkòtò which you called trouser is just name semantics. The only other option to wearing that is to tie clothes around the waist. But the Yoruba sòkòtò, from which the modern wears were modified, were of unique styles peculiar to Yorubas or Africans in the least. The materials used are also unique to same.

Stop confusing lemons with limes.

Ihuomadinihu:

Accessory is not attire,my friend!
We are taking about full attires. Igbo shirts can go with or without cuffs,those are modern emblishments not exclusive to anyone. How does it make it unafrican. The modern designer beads that women wear to complement their attire are UnAfrican. The shoes you wear are unAfrican. The modern Nigerian Headgear is unafrican. You have to stick to one definition,you are no longer making sense.

Thanks for agreeing with my first post on the thread and the reason for this unnecessary back and forth. Daalụ

Ihuomadinihu:

A[b]ccessory is not attire,my friend![/b]
We are taking about full attires. Igbo shirts can go with or without cuffs,those are modern emblishments not exclusive to anyone. How does it make it unafrican. The modern designer beads that women wear to complement their attire are UnAfrican. The shoes you wear are unAfrican. The modern Nigerian Headgear is unafrican. You have to stick to one definition,you are no longer making sense.

Exactly what I was just typing to him