I never called for an Igbo king. I called for a centralized Igbo authority with enough power to act on our behalf. Since we are already democratic, we should organize along something similar to the German example given by[b] UcheUwadi_ [/b]. Bottom line is that we must organize for collective action. Unbridled individualism will lead to our annihilation. We cannot afford that.
The little respect we have in Nigeria today is because our past role in Biafra and MASSOB of today. You don't have to agree with me.

Onlytruth,This issue also exisrfs among the Akwaibom and Cross Rivers people hence since the passing of Efiong its been hard pinpoint any1 leader that can speak for them. It makes no sense how people call the Ibibio, Oron, Annang, Efik, Ekoi, etc called ethnic groups when the differences btwn them are just dialects. The loss of Bakassi is a good example of what happens when people can't speak with 1 voice bcoz they lack cenral leadership. The Efiks were left alone to fight that battle when it should have concerned all of them.

What Asha suggested is the ONLY thing I will find acceptable. Any other form of government can be scrapped. Asha, thank you for your suggestion. Also, I understand that you don't mean it negatively, but how do you think my upbringing affected my thinking?

Udezue, I don't understand why you find it so difficult to understand my position.

udezue:

Onlytruth,This issue also exisrfs among the Akwaibom and Cross Rivers people hence since the passing of Efiong its been hard pinpoint any1 leader that can speak for them. It makes no sense how people call the Ibibio, Oron, Annang, Efik, Ekoi, etc called ethnic groups when the differences btwn them are just dialects. The loss of Bakassi is a good example of what happens when people can't speak with 1 voice bcoz they lack cenral leadership. The Efiks were left alone to fight that battle when it should have concerned all of them.

Thank you for that example. I know that there is no way in hell a "Biafra" would have lost Bakassi or even a single football match to Cameroun. The funny thing is that of all Nigerian groups, the Camerounians fear the "Biafrans" most.
Anything that has to do with a "Le Biafrain" is handled with caution by Cameroun. Note that Eastern football clubs like former Iwuanyanwu (Current Heartlands) and Enyimba, never lost matches to Camerounian teams. Nigerian Super eagles has a humble record with the indomitable lions of Cameroun.
I pity my Efik folks for Bakassi. 250,000 people thrown under the bus by an unscrupulous nation.

Onlytruth:

Thank you for that example. I know that there is no way in hell a "Biafra" would have lost Bakassi or even a single football match to Cameroun. The funny thing is that of all Nigerian groups, the Camerounians fear the "Biafrans" most.
Anything that has to do with a "Le Biafrain" is handled with caution by Cameroun. Note that Eastern football clubs like former Iwuanyanwu (Current Heartlands) and Enyimba, never lost matches to Camerounian teams. Nigerian Super eagles has a humble record with the indomitable lions of Cameroun.
I pity my Efik folks for Bakassi. 250,000 people thrown under the bus by an unscrupulous nation. 

That lacked intelligence. Going by your flawed analysis, Brazilian club sides should always defeat Argentinian sides in the Copa libertadores since the Brazilian national team always hammers Argentina.

An interesting discussion is going on here.

I’ve always believed in “One Igbo” nation. For those that said that Kingship can’t work in Igboland, I wonder how many towns that have gotten rid of their kings (formerly Warrant Chiefs). Ezes, Igwes, Obis, etc have come to stay and will never go away. Take a look at our movies, it now seems like we’ve had Igwes from time immemorial. The truth is that this new trend, kingship, is evolving in Igboland.

We’ve never tasted a more central king, but I’ll guarantee you that once that pragmatic move has been made, it will never go away; and that’s when, I believe, Igbos as a people will be finally evolved. (I equally believe that if the British had not intervened, we would eventually evolve as a nation with a leadership, remember some Igbo tribes were expanding and becoming more organized centrally).

This kingship is necessary when we have so many Igbo states as we do today. A better alternative is to have just one central democratically elected leadership for all Igbo nations and have one parliament with representation from all Igbo nations.

Nri child, the ONLY option is that "better alternative", because trust me, the day people like you start advocating and initiating some foolish "pan-Igbo" kingship institution is the day that various Igbo groups will turn and walk away from this loose affiliation. One-Igbo nonsense. Shine your eyes and see that such a thing cannot (and simply will not) work with/for us.

006:

An interesting discussion is going on here.

I’ve always believed in “One Igbo” nation. For those that said that Kingship can’t work in Igboland, I wonder how many towns that have gotten rid of their kings (formerly Warrant Chiefs). Ezes, Igwes, Obis, etc have come to stay and will never go away. Take a look at our movies, it now seems like we’ve had Igwes from time immemorial. The truth is that this new trend, kingship, is evolving in Igboland.

We’ve never tasted a more central king, but I’ll guarantee you that once that pragmatic move has been made, it will never go away; and that’s when, I believe, Igbos as a people will be finally evolved. (I equally believe that if the British had not intervened, we would eventually evolve as a nation with a leadership, remember some Igbo tribes were expanding and becoming more organized centrally).

This kingship is necessary when we have so many Igbo states as we do today. A better alternative is to have just one central democratically elected leadership for all Igbo nations and have one parliament with representation from all Igbo nations.

Igbo decentralisation was the biggest problem for colonialists, if there was a king then it would have been easier to subdue all the Igbo groups and the lack of this centralised authority frustrated the British. I don't believe having a king evolves a nation and I think it would cause a big mess anyway going by the examples of the leaders of the other 'big 2' in Nigeria.

The British that you are referencing are even questioning the need for the Queen; she knows that once her son becomes king the British royal families old days are done.

Talking about evolution are you aware that the USA vehemently opposed monarchy? I would advise you to go and research why before proposing a king for Igbo people.

There's no point of this discussion anyway because no relevant Igbo person in the public eye would support this, they don't even support one Igbo language.

The parliament idea is better.

ChinenyeN:

Nri child, the ONLY option is that "better alternative", because trust me, the day people like you start advocating and initiating some foolish "pan-Igbo" kingship institution is the day that various Igbo groups will turn and walk away from this loose affiliation. One-Igbo nonsense. Shine your eyes and see that such a thing cannot (and simply will not) work with/for us.

@ ChinenyeN:
"Ibu onye igbo?" - Am just asking. I expect you should give reasons why you oppose, and not just repeating "it won't work".

As ezeagu stated, the parliament idea is better.

ezeagu:

Igbo decentralisation was the biggest problem for colonialists, if there was a king then it would have been easier to subdue all the Igbo groups and the lack of this centralised authority frustrated the British. I don't believe having a king evolves a nation and I think it would cause a big mess anyway going by the examples of the leaders of the other 'big 2' in Nigeria.

The British that you are referencing are even questioning the need for the Queen; she knows that once her son becomes king the British royal families old days are done.

Talking about evolution are you aware that the USA vehemently opposed monarchy? I would advise you to go and research why before proposing a king for Igbo people.

There's no point of this discussion anyway because no relevant Igbo person in the public eye would support this, they don't even support one Igbo language.

The parliament idea is better.

Care to elucidate further on the text in bold.
Did it occur to you that the reason the British were able to subdue the Nigerian territory was because there was no unifying force in existence. Also, you argue that with a King, it would have been easier for the British to subdue the Igbo. They simply moved from village to village conquering. But I argue that with a King, it would have been more difficult for the British to subdue the Igbo. The Bini's had a King (OBA OVONRAMWEN NOGBAISI) and still fought gallantly.

My post is neither for or against a King today.

ezeagu:

Igbo decentralisation was the biggest problem for colonialists, if there was a king then it would have been easier to subdue all the Igbo groups and the lack of this centralised authority frustrated the British. I don't believe having a king evolves a nation and I think it would cause a big mess anyway going by the examples of the leaders of the other 'big 2' in Nigeria.

The British that you are referencing are even questioning the need for the Queen; she knows that once her son becomes king the British royal families old days are done.

Talking about evolution are you aware that the USA vehemently opposed monarchy? I would advise you to go and research why before proposing a king for Igbo people.

There's no point of this discussion anyway because no relevant Igbo person in the public eye would support this, they don't even support one Igbo language.

The parliament idea is better.

The US is a different scenario because, apart from the Native Americans, the rest are immigrants from so many countries and ethnicities. Most countries we have today had kings in the past and some still do but with lesser powers. From Japan to Europe, they evolved with that system independently.

The truth is that no one knows what the Igbo nations would have become if the British didn’t come. Some were expanding, some developed kings and central governments like Nnewi and Aro. But let us not link having a king to decay in individualism. That trait is inherent in every Igbo man, every man has a voice and that voice must be heard but we still believed in democracy where general consensus rules.

Kingship is no longer fashionable these days but it is a stage in a nation’s development that we skipped because of interference from the Europeans. It might be the reason why sometimes we seem disorganized. I’ll put it to you that we need a leader; it’s evident how we cherish Ojukwu though he is not formerly crowned. We cannot know how good it will taste until we try it.

egift, how can you ask me such a question. My post, and my signature should be able to indicate such to you. In response to the second part of your post, I've expressed my reasoning several times on this forum, and 006 already knows my stance on this issue. So I did't feel the need to enumerate why. Also the discussion going on here is mainly between Igbo. So I see no need to enumerate, because they already know what I mean. Lastly, even non-Igbo, familiar with the kind of decentralization found among the Igbo would know what I mean. So I really did not have to explain/write beyond the much I already wrote.

Katsumoto:

Care to elucidate further on the text in bold.
Did it occur to you that the reason the British were able to subdue the Nigerian territory was because there was no unifying force in existence. Also, you argue that with a King, it would have been easier for the British to subdue the Igbo. They simply moved from village to village conquering. But I argue that with a King, it would have been more difficult for the British to subdue the Igbo. The Bini's had a King (OBA OVONRAMWEN NOGBAISI) and still fought gallantly.

My post is neither for or against a King today.

To put it roughly, The Sultan of Sokoto was/is a British puppet and the Ooni and Alaafin are busy tussling over the title of 'King of the Yoruba', what strides have they made for the unity of their nation? was it not the error of a Yoruba king in the 18th/19th century that led to the Fulani influence in what is now Kwara?

The British conquered by trade, ideology and religion. Yes, a unifying force would have ensured the protection of the area now known as Nigeria to colonialists, but a unifying force does not mean a king.

006:

The US is a different scenario because, apart from the Native Americans, the rest are immigrants from so many countries and ethnicities. Most countries we have today had kings in the past and some still do but with lesser powers. From Japan to Europe, they evolved with that system independently.

The truth is that no one knows what the Igbo nations would have become if the British didn’t come. Some were expanding, some developed kings and central governments like Nnewi and Aro. But let us not link having a king to decay in individualism. That trait is inherent in every Igbo man, every man has a voice and that voice must be heard but we still believed in democracy where general consensus rules.

Kingship is no longer fashionable these days but it is a stage in a nation’s development that we skipped because of interference from the Europeans. It might be the reason why sometimes we seem disorganized. I’ll put it to you that we need a leader; it’s evident how we cherish Ojukwu though he is not formerly crowned. We cannot know how good it will taste until we try it.

Nnewi, Nri, Aro etc Eze's are priests, not emperors like in the case of Europe and Japan. You suggested a parliament, I think that would be the best thing.

ezeagu:

To put it roughly, The Sultan of Sokoto was/is a British puppet and the Ooni and Alaafin are busy tussling over the title of 'King of the Yoruba', what strides have they made for the unity of their nation? was it not the error of a Yoruba king in the 18th/19th century that led to the Fulani influence in what is now Kwara?

The British conquered by trade, ideology and religion. Yes, a unifying force would have ensured the protection of the area now known as Nigeria to colonialists, but a unifying force does not mean a king.

It was not the error of a king that led to fulani influence; it was more the betrayal of Alaafin Aole by Afonja and Afonja's betrayal by a muslim scholar called Abdulsalam (Abdusalam was the heir to Alimi, who Afonja had invited to Ilorin after rejecting the Alaafin's authority).

When the British came to Nigeria, the Alaafin and the Ooni were not tussling for anything. The British had to use different methods to usurp the authority of the various Yoruba kings; Dosumu (deception), Awujale, (Battle at Imagbon), Alake (Religion).

Katsumoto:

It was not the error of a king that led to fulani influence; it was more the betrayal of Alaafin Aole by Afonja and Afonja's betrayal by a muslim scholar called Abdulsalam (Abdusalam was the heir to Alimi, who Afonja had invited to Ilorin after rejecting the Alaafin's authority).

Without a central king the Fulani influence would not have swooped over the people so easily.

Katsumoto:

When the British came to Nigeria, the Alaafin and the Ooni were not tussling for anything. The British had to use different methods to usurp the authority of the various Yoruba kings; Dosumu (deception), Awujale, (Battle at Imagbon), Alake (Religion).

This is exactly my point, it's easier to manipulate a people when they are invested in one entity, e.g the Ashanti golden stool.

ezeagu:

This is exactly my point, it's easier to manipulate a people when they are invested in one entity, e.g the Ashanti golden stool.

This does not make sense. A king can easily defend his people or sell them out depending on the intentions of the king, the love for his people, the resources at his disposal, and his military abilities. On the otherhand, a loose and uncoordinated people are always conquered; case in point China. China was conquered several times by the mongolians and japanese which both had smaller armies. The mongolians themselves fought many meaningless wars until they were united by Ghengis Khan. Also read about how the Zulu under Cetshwayo delivered the heaviest defeat ever suffered by a modern army against a primitive army at the Battle of Isandlwana in 1879.

ezeagu:

Without a central king the Fulani influence would not have swooped over the people so easily.

You miss the point completely. The reason why the Jihadists couldn't take Ilorin was because Ilorin an outpost of the Oyo empire. Without the influence of the Oyo empire, Ilorin could possibly have been taken by force by the bigger rampaging fulani jihadists.

Katsumoto:

This does not make sense. A king can easily defend his people or sell them out depending on the intentions of the king, the love for his people, the resources at his disposal, and his military abilities. On the otherhand, a loose and uncoordinated people are always conquered; case in point China. China was conquered several times by the mongolians and japanese which both had smaller armies. The mongolians themselves fought many meaningless wars until they were united by Ghengis Khan. Also read about how the Zulu under Cetshwayo delivered the heaviest defeat ever suffered by a modern army against a primitive army at the Battle of Isandlwana in 1879.

In a modern context, I don't think anyone will be invading anyone, so there still isn't anyneed for a king now. The biggest threat is the selling out situation which is the most likely situation in today's time; that just pushes me further away from supporting any king.

Going back in history for context, the USA never had kings and they successfully pushed out the British Empire.

Katsumoto:

You miss the point completely. The reason why the Jihadists couldn't take Ilorin was because Ilorin an outpost of the Oyo empire. Without the influence of the Oyo empire, Ilorin could possibly have been taken by force by the bigger rampaging fulani jihadists.

The king 'imported' Muslim slaves didn't he? He helped push his enemies into his kingdom, and he slipt of his thrown, which is what a king should never do, but then again he's a king and can do what he like, which reminds me of my stance on kingship. . . . . There are still people up there (Kaduna etc.) who aren't Muslims, they didn't necessarily have kings but they managed to guard themselves till today. The Illorin Kings decision was bad and shows what happens when you have one man in complete control.

ezeagu:

In a modern context, I don't think anyone will be invading anyone, so there still isn't anyneed for a king now. The biggest threat is the selling out situation which is the most likely situation in today's time; that just pushes me further away from supporting any king.

Going back in history for context, the USA never had kings and they successfully pushed out the British Empire.

The king 'imported' Muslim slaves didn't he? He helped push his enemies into his kingdom, and he slipt of his thrown, which is what a king should never do, but then again he's a king and can do what he like, which reminds me of my stance on kingship. . . . . There are still people up there (Kaduna etc.) who aren't Muslims, they didn't necessarily have kings but they managed to guard themselves till today. The Illorin Kings decision was bad and shows what happens when you have one man in complete control.

I am sorry but you have history mixed up. There was no king in Ilorin. Ilorin was an outpost of the Oyo empire. Afonja was the Aare-Onakakanfo (General of the Oyo empire army) and was stationed at Ilorin because he was too powerful to be stationed at Oyo (just like Roman generals were stationed in Spain, turkey but rarely allowed into Rome). In 1817, Afonja sent an empty calabash to Alaafin Aole signalling that he was no subject to his authority. The Alaafin commits suicide. Afonja then invites Alimi (a fulani muslim scholar) from Kuwo (a Yoruba town) to Ilorin for the purpose of getting charms from him. Alimi dies in 1823 and his leading follower Abdusalam becomes Afonja's right hand man but betrays Afonja by inviting the the caliphate flag from Sokoto.

Also the hausa were defeated by the fulani and several hausa emirs pledged loyalty to the fulani sultan in sokoto.

Katsumoto:

I am sorry but you have history mixed up. There was no king in Ilorin. Ilorin was an outpost of the Oyo empire. Afonja was the Aare-Onakakanfo (General of the Oyo empire army) and was stationed at Ilorin because he was too powerful to be stationed at Oyo (just like Roman generals were stationed in Spain, turkey but rarely allowed into Rome). In 1817, Afonja sent an empty calabash to Alaafin Aole signalling that he was no subject to his authority. The Alaafin commits suicide. Afonja then invites Alimi (a fulani muslim scholar) from Kuwo (a Yoruba town) to Ilorin for the purpose of getting charms from him. Alimi dies in 1823 and his leading follower Abdusalam becomes Afonja's right hand man but betrays Afonja by inviting the the caliphate flag from Sokoto.

Also the hausa were defeated by the fulani and several hausa emirs pledged loyalty to the fulani sultan in sokoto.

Okay, but I think you know what I meant? My stance still stands that a king is not needed.

Katsumoto, it has been documented that Ndi Igbo were very hard and troublesome to subdue. The British preferred conquering organized states, because once you took out the head, then the body fell. The Ndi Igbo had not central figure in which the British could cut off so that is what made it difficult for them to conquer the Igbos. And yes, it was hard for the British to have to go from village to village to defeat the Igbos. Not to say that as a people were better at resisting the British, but from their own historians, not ours, they believed that the Igbo were the hardest to subdue in Nigeria. It was due to our decentralized nature. A stronger power would rather face a unified group than a group that is not unified. Because you have to battle each faction for control, not just strike a final blow at one target.

Leave tribal sentiment alone, the British thought the Fulani were the easiest to subdue once that defeated the Sultan of Sokoto, and Yorubaland was already in disarray due to various factors. Now if the Old Oyo Empire was at its height, then it would have been harder for the British.

Now the Benin Empire was a force that challenged the British directly and that is why they sacked their capital. And to add insult to injury, they stole their famous Bronze statues which was the most tragic of the whole situation.

UcheUwadi_:

Now if the Old Oyo Empire was at its height, then it would have been harder for the British.

Sorry to barge in to your very interesting discussion, but I am a bit curious to see how you would reconcile the above point with the rest of your argument.

beneli:

Sorry to barge in to your very interesting discussion, but I am a bit curious to see how you would reconcile the above point with the rest of your argument.

With the rest of my argument, I am simply reiterrating what the British stated when they were trying to subdue the Igbo. With my statement that you highlighted, I was thinking that if the Old Oyo Empire was at the height of its power, then it would have been harder for the British to subdue Yorubaland.

However, with the British record, they would have dealt with the Old Oyo Empire just like the way they dealt with the Sokoto Caliphate and the Benin Empire. Once you strike the head, then the cookie crumbles. This is just a hypothetical conclusion.

Let us use the example of the Roman Empire and their invasion of Germania. In the past, Germany was a collection of Germanic speaking tribes, but the Romans could not conquer these people, because like the British, they had to go from clan to clan in order to subdue them. This constant warfare drained the Roman Empire and they had to pull back into Gaul (France). The decentralized nature of the former Germanic tribes was a benefit to them, because they were able to overstretch a great power. And the Roman Empire at its height was a strong militaristic empire that the world had never seen.

Now back on topic, the Igbo needs centralized leadership who can speak on behalf of Igbo interest. Clannish sentiment need to be left in the past and one day, we need a leader like Otto Von Bismark to unify all the Igbo speaking groups. I even believe we need a unified language. Before Mandarin Chinese was created, the Chinese language had thousands of dialects. Not until the first Chinese emperor did the language become codified and under one standard dialect. This is what needs to happen for the Igbo. All these dialects in our language is not useful when communication can be difficult for people who speak the same language.

UcheUwadi_:

Katsumoto, it has been documented that Ndi Igbo were very hard and troublesome to subdue. The British preferred conquering organized states, because once you took out the head, then the body fell. The Ndi Igbo had not central figure in which the British could cut off so that is what made it difficult for them to conquer the Igbos. And yes, it was hard for the British to have to go from village to village to defeat the Igbos. Not to say that as a people were better at resisting the British, but from their own historians, not ours, they believed that the Igbo were the hardest to subdue in Nigeria. It was due to our decentralized nature. A stronger power would rather face a unified group than a group that is not unified. Because you have to battle each faction for control, not just strike a final blow at one target.

Leave tribal sentiment alone, the British thought the Fulani were the easiest to subdue once that defeated the Sultan of Sokoto, and Yorubaland was already in disarray due to various factors. Now if the Old Oyo Empire was at its height, then it would have been harder for the British.

Now the Benin Empire was a force that challenged the British directly and that is why they sacked their capital. And to add insult to injury, they stole their famous Bronze statues which was the most tragic of the whole situation.

You are correct in that Igbos were the most difficult to subdue but they were always going to be subdued. On the other-hand, the more organised kingdoms caused more casualties to the British. The reasons the organised kingdoms lost was simply because the British had superior firepower. The Binis, Zulus, Ijebus all fought gallantly but lost not for lack of trying.

In summary, a centralised authority is easier to defeat but a centralised authority is also the best chance at fighting an enemy. Why was it difficult for all imperial powers to engage Japan? The portuguese were the first to attempt the conquest of Japan but lost even before fighting started. The remaining powers all decided to trade with Japan from China since Japan was very organised, militarily under the Shogun. Do you think Vietnam would have been able to defeat the French if they were not organised under Ho Chi Minh?

beneli:

Sorry to barge in to your very interesting discussion, but I am a bit curious to see how you would reconcile the above point with the rest of your argument.

Thanks for that.

UcheUwadi_:

With the rest of my argument, I am simply reiterrating what the British stated when they were trying to subdue the Igbo. With my statement that you highlighted, I was thinking that if the Old Oyo Empire was at the height of its power, then it would have been harder for the British to subdue Yorubaland.

However, with the British record, they would have dealt with the Old Oyo Empire just like the way they dealt with the Sokoto Caliphate and the Benin Empire. Once you strike the head, then the cookie crumbles. This is just a hypothetical conclusion.

Let us use the example of the Roman Empire and their invasion of Germania. In the past, Germany was a collection of Germanic speaking tribes, but the Romans could not conquer these people, because like the British, they had to go from clan to clan in order to subdue them. This constant warfare drained the Roman Empire and they had to pull back into Gaul (France). The decentralized nature of the former Germanic tribes was a benefit to them, because they were able to overstretch a great power. And the Roman Empire at its height was a strong militaristic empire that the world had never seen.

Now back on topic, the Igbo needs centralized leadership who can speak on behalf of Igbo interest. Clannish sentiment need to be left in the past and one day, we need a leader like Otto Von Bismark to unify all the Igbo speaking groups. I even believe we need a unified language. Before Mandarin Chinese was created, the Chinese language had thousands of dialects. Not until the first Chinese emperor did the language become codified and under one standard dialect. This is what needs to happen for the Igbo. All these dialects in our language is not useful when communication can be difficult for people who speak the same language.

You make a fine argument with regards to the germanic tribes but you must equally balance it. The loose structure of the germanic tribes assisted in fighting the romans but they were eventually subdued. The romans were more concerned with the invasion from the Nordic countries. This loose structure was what left Germany defenseless during the 30 years war with its more organised European neighbours France, England, Spain, Sweden, and the Austro-Hungarian empire fighting continously on its lands.

The rest of your argument is fine and I like your example of Bismark uniting Germany.

UcheUwadi_ the idea of a unified language only sounds agreeable when restricted to just inter-regional means of communication (at least, that's my opinion).

ChinenyeN:

UcheUwadi_ the idea of a unified language only sounds agreeable when restricted to just inter-regional means of communication (at least, that's my opinion).

One of two things is inevitable: The Igbo language dies off or the Igbo language will mix and dialects will die.

The more Igbo people meet and settle in different towns the more our dialects will get mixed up and its already happening. I cant speak pure Oka or Ajali dialect and when I try the Enugu dialect that I know gets mixed into it. No matter what we think or want, Igbo language is becoming a melting pot of different dialects. This is 2010 not 1658 when communities stayed apart. The dialects will remain but none will be pure. I know some Igbos epeicially the ones who lived in PH and when they talk u hear Ikwere and other dialects mixed with it.

Chinyen u are hard to understand. 

I do agree with Asha tho so atleast we are coming to an agreement wanyo wanyo.

My stance is rather simple Udezue. People should just try not to think more of it than what they read.

ezeagu:

One of two things is inevitable: The Igbo language dies off or the Igbo language will mix and dialects will die.

Although both are actually happening, the bolded one saddens me the most. That is why I am taking steps to preserve my own lect (I refuse to say dialect, because of the implications), in my own house, and encouraging others to do the same. I don't mind some kind of standard, official Igbo being developed and used, but I'd rather not see it in my own house. So, it can just stay in the domain of inter-regional discourse.

udezue:

The more Igbo people meet and settle in different towns the more our dialects will get mixed up and its already happening. I cant speak pure Oka or Ajali dialect and when I try the Enugu dialect that I know gets mixed into it. No matter what we think or want, Igbo language is becoming a melting pot of different dialects. This is 2010 not 1658 when communities stayed apart. The dialects will remain but none will be pure. I know some Igbos epeicially the ones who lived in PH and when they talk u hear Ikwere and other dialects mixed with it.

I guess we're different, in this respect. I can't really speak anything else, but Ngwa (and it isn't the city-type Ngwa). I can, to an extent, write in a generalized, 'less-Ngwa' type Igbo, but actually speaking it makes me sound like an incompetent Igbo speaker. I remember a time when I started actively trying to speak generalized 'less-Ngwa' Igbo at Igbo gathering. The reactions I got were annoying. So I switched back to, and stayed with pure Ngwa, something I'm more than competent in. So, if ever I meet an Igbo and we start discussing, and I find out that the person cannot understand what I'm saying, I'll either just speak English (like now), or actually try and make a [laughable] attempt to loosen my tongue and mix it with whatever generalized Igbo I can correctly speak.

I know for sure that most Igbo wants to pull together than pull apart. It is a no brainer. We can "unwind" if Nigeria changes or if we separate from Nigeria. For now, "Igwe bu ike". Simple enough.

ChinenyeN:

What Asha suggested is the ONLY thing I will find acceptable. Any other form of government can be scrapped. Asha, thank you for your suggestion. Also, I understand that you don't mean it negatively, but how do you think my upbringing affected my thinking?
Udezue, I don't understand why you find it so difficult to understand my position.

Now you told me that that you born in lagos and stayed there till you were at least 7yrs old before you relocated to the US.My guess is that you did not get to mix up well with other people of other igbo subgroups(your mates) while you were maturing.What this means is that as you were growing up probably it was ngwa that was the language been spoken to you and your house hold.Now later as you are maturing you now want to find out more about NGWA people(through journals and family members) and in the process you discover that there are other people(sub igbo groups) that have similar culture and language as you.Hence that statement you once made that you only started accepting you are igbo recently

Now for me and numerous others(like the those people in your amaaala meetings that were speaking more of general igbo than ngwa)it is a different scenario.Like i have told you before my Dad is from Obowo and Mum is from Mbaise and i was born and brought up in Owerri.It the place i grew up in Owerri families from other igbo subgroups were our neighbours.People from Arochukwu,Mbaise,Abakiliki,Orlu,Ngwa,Ohafia,Ideato,Isiukwuato were all there.There was also an Hausa family living near.I will get back to this.

The thing now is that us the kids of these parents in the area grew up speaking our different dialects at home but as we mixed with each other in schools and playgrounds our different dialects started to give way to what i term 'street igbo' as communication developed btw us.Now all these are happenning as young as when someone was a toddler.We got to understand that we were speaking similar languages and in the process in order for effective communication dialects were interchanging.This 'street igbo' is usually influnced by the town or city one was brought up in ( the Owerri 'street igbo' is quite different from the Onitsha 'street igbo') and also by the igbo izugbe we learnt in school.

Also we were quite aware of our little differences culturally.Eg as young as 11yrs one of my friends who was from Ohafia was already aware that we do iwa akwa in our hometown while they do not courtsey of my older cousin who was doing his own and my friend accmpanied us to my village.Also when visiting this guy at his home i could not understand more than 50% of what he was saying with his parents.

It is not that we do not know our differences but it is no longer a big deal to most of us.It is not that we can no longer speak our dialects again but due to the nature of how we grew up the 'street igbo' more often that not predominates hence why that Ngwa music flick that you saw might have been done in non pure Ngwa.

However for that hausa guy that grew with us it was obvious that he was different depite speaking igbo with us.I mean at his home that language was totally different and their name no where familiar with the familiar igbo names we all knew.

asha 80:


It is not that we do not know our differences but it is no longer a big deal to most of us.It is not that we can no longer speak our dialects again but due to the nature of how we grew up the 'street igbo' more often that not predominates hence why that Ngwa music flick that you saw might have been done in non pure Ngwa.

Nice story, but how many belong to this MOST group?