I have seen many claims about Igboland and a lot of identity crisis in Igboid people. I have come to the conclusion that most people who have heard of the people Igbo (including Igbos themselves) do not know what Igbo is in the first place.

For example, certain parts of Igboland which are not in the 5 SE states would look at how their dialect has a lot of differences from institutionalised Igbo. They will see the difference in culture with what is known as “Igbo culture” and they will remember a few oral pieces of knowledge that describes migration into their land. Then they will look at the fact that they are not in an “Igbo state” and say “we are not Igbo”. Now this is a clear signal that they never new what Igbo was. Because nearly every single one of the tribes in Igboland have all the different factors mentioned here and could have made an even more convincing argument if let’s say Anioma was in the 5 core states and Ibibio-Efik-Ejagham related Igbo were not.

Since Ndigbo were always decentralised yet are a large body, Igbo neighbours could be considered similarly to non-Igbo neighbours to a clan. They clan considered themselves individually and could form partners with anyone they pleased and also find enemies in anyone they pleased. They could also accommodate anyone they pleased. Hence western Igbo could accommodate Edoid people. Southern, Ijoid - you get the point. But also they could grow and develop alongside whoever they want.

Other tribes do not get reprimanded for “copying” yet Igbo because we are considered as a monolith. People can understand why Yakurr, Ejagham, Ibibio and Efik have similar culture but with Igbo clans who lived with them and developed with them suddenly the similarities are called “copies”. If they have something that is clearly Igbo derived that is called Igbo “oppression”. With the west side of Igboland people cannot see why western Igbo utilise coral beads. As if they were there to see how coral beads spread. Forgetting that it has always been a large myriad of tribes who wore coral beads and the vast majority don’t have nearly as much evidence of wearing it in pre-colonial as Igbo do.

Then the idea that there is this standard “Igbo” clothing. Igbo people have worn all manners of clothing and different tribes of Igbo wore clothes differently. And in fact a small few were inspired by more northern traders. However there seems to be an unwritten rule that Igbo are not allowed to be influenced by more Northern people. Yet Yoruba can, with things such as the agbada which has roots in Tuareg clothes. Igbo clothes were also indigenous and Igbo tailors and weavers could replicate any thing they saw. Including indigenously made pantaloons.

Then the ridiculous Igala origin theory for parts of Igboland when in reality Igala is a baby ethnicity compared to Igbo. As it was created in the 14th century by Wukari migration into Igboland and other ethnicities(it wasn’t only Igboland). And they even recognise that Igbo consisted of part of their creation.

Igbo is an identity marked by common ancestors, the Igboid language group, the 4 market days, the Igbo religion etc. It is the best way of describing this mass of ancestry and culture.

Interesting. Perhaps this crisis became an issue after the Biafran war.

A linguistic group. Like Celts or Slavs or Nguni or Akan.

RedboneSmith:
A linguistic group. Like Celts or Slavs or Nguni or Akan.

Close, but I still feel linguistic group is a bit too loose as apart from Ejagham we are older than all our neighbours. It is more like a group of people with common ancestry and values (one of which is independence) whom over thousands of years those values further diversified them. Linguistic group has the suggestion that similarly to Yoruba and Igbo they aren’t of the same ethnicity. However your examples apart from Slavs is great. This is just my opinion.

A cultural and linguistic group.

In fact it also makes you think, what is Igbo traditional attire.

I have seen people ridiculing Igbo people for copying attire of other places, I think it is a fair dig. Why? Because wearing Yoruba cap in an igbo event is shameful. I also think Yoruba agbada should not be worn at Igbo events. However there is a misconception that the Igbo now think it is their own attire. This is false.

Instead Igbo have always seen clothes as whatever is fashionable, they haven’t really thought “this is Igbo style clothing” as heavily but more “this is made locally and this is made somewhere else”. Of course there is an Igbo taste which differs place to place. Of course this doesn’t mean we do not have Igbo outfits of the modern day.

Unlike Izon, Ibibio, Efik, Yoruba and Itshekiri. Igbo people have not had much direct contact with white people on their land until 1900. Except some expeditions and trading that occurred at Aboh, Asaba and Onitsha. However even in those contacts, the explorers said those towns manufacture their own clothes and in fact Asaba and Agbor was noted to send cloth to Benin city. They were know for akwa ocha just like Onitsha and so people claiming that their clothing is Benin derived, whilst the outfit of many traditional rulers are certainly Benin derive, the white cloth trend only has evidence of being Igbo to Benin and no evidence of Benin to Igbo (not saying it isn’t also indigenous to Benin btw).

So when people pull out pictures from 1890-1911 as evidence of ancient Igbo clothing and architecture, some people may get confused however, they forget that hinterland was closed off to any outsiders and the work was seen by Europeans as not having western influence. Igbo did not have the same contact with whites as others did.

Now different parts of Igboland had different clothing and different parts wore different clothes for different reasons. Whether it is for dancing, farming, fighting, or travelling. Whether the wearer was old or young determined the clothes. People who are not aquatinted with Igbo history and culture, pull out one set of clothing in one instance and apply it to the rest of the land and all situations. Igbo people wore long tops similar to agbada family tree, they also wore wrappers, also wore loin cloth, also wore toga, also wore head tie, also wore coral beads, also wore raffia and so on.

Below I will post a true story which represents how Igbos view clothes best, it is the story of how British uniform for well mimicked. I think honestly British uniform was ugly but it is hard to reproduce.

Examples. Now what is Igbo attire? Attire widely used in Igboland before 1914 in my opinion.

Them bastards will tell you that Wike is the slayer of IPOB. And hail him. By IPOB, the mean Ndigbo.

The same bastards will tell you that Ndigbo illtreated the minorities of old Eastern Region


Them bastards will tell you that all the tribes of South South enslaved Ndigbo. They say that Efiks and Ibibios used to kidnap Ndigbo and sell them as slaves.

The same bastards will tell you that Ndigbo do oppress their neighbors in South South. And Ndigbo violently took Arochukwu from Ibibios.


Them bastards will tell you that Ndigbo like copying others. But the will sweep under the rug the fact that many ethnic groups are using the Igbo market week.



The thing is that, in the psyche of the bastards it is good and right to shift the goal post when it is the turn of Ndigbo.


Imagine:
"Igbos don't sell lands to people of other ethnic groups"

But we have not seen them buying lands in Cross River, Akwa Ibom, Rivers, Bayelsa, Edo, Benue, Delta, and Kogi states.

The truth is that they don't buy lands outside their geopolitical zones. They say that nonsense in order to score a useless point in the circle of slowpokes like them.






Anyway,
Ana chufu egbe tupu ata wa nwa uriom uta.
(we first of all chase away the eagle, before we blame the chick)

I am not one sided.

These bastards that I am talking honestly shouldn't be blamed solely for everything.

Our people also contribute to these nonsense.

When you go about tarnishing Tinubus image as if he was once a governor in South East, or as if he is the president what do you expect.


Can't you just sit down and observe.

Must you put your mouth in everything. That was the way the forever cursed soul called Kaduna Nzeogwu put our tribe in mess.


Herdsmen will attack people in Benue state and you will start running your mouth as if Benue people gave you money to support them. For your information: if herdsmen kill half of them in Benue, the will still chose Fulani and trow you inside the soak-away



Umunne, am I demanding too much by pleading with you to just be observing instead of commenting unnecessary hate filled comments.

ChebeNdigboCalm:
I have seen many claims about Igboland and a lot of identity crisis in Igboid people. I have come to the conclusion that most people who have heard of the people Igbo (including Igbos themselves) do not know what Igbo is in the first place.

For example, certain parts of Igboland which are not in the 5 SE states would look at how their dialect has a lot of differences from institutionalised Igbo. They will see the difference in culture with what is known as “Igbo culture” and they will remember a few oral pieces of knowledge that describes migration into their land. Then they will look at the fact that they are not in an “Igbo state” and say “we are not Igbo”. Now this is a clear signal that they never new what Igbo was. Because nearly every single one of the tribes in Igboland have all the different factors mentioned here and could have made an even more convincing argument if let’s say Anioma was in the 5 core states and Ibibio-Efik-Ejagham related Igbo were not.

Since Ndigbo were always decentralised yet are a large body, Igbo neighbours could be considered similarly to non-Igbo neighbours to a clan. They clan considered themselves individually and could form partners with anyone they pleased and also find enemies in anyone they pleased. They could also accommodate anyone they pleased. Hence western Igbo could accommodate Edoid people. Southern, Ijoid - you get the point. But also they could grow and develop alongside whoever they want.

Other tribes do not get reprimanded for “copying” yet Igbo because we are considered as a monolith. People can understand why Yakurr, Ejagham, Ibibio and Efik have similar culture but with Igbo clans who lived with them and developed with them suddenly the similarities are called “copies”. If they have something that is clearly Igbo derived that is called Igbo “oppression”. With the west side of Igboland people cannot see why western Igbo utilise coral beads. As if they were there to see how coral beads spread. Forgetting that it has always been a large myriad of tribes who wore coral beads and the vast majority don’t have nearly as much evidence of wearing it in pre-colonial as Igbo do.

Then the idea that there is this standard “Igbo” clothing. Igbo people have worn all manners of clothing and different tribes of Igbo wore clothes differently. And in fact a small few were inspired by more northern traders. However there seems to be an unwritten rule that Igbo are not allowed to be influenced by more Northern people. Yet Yoruba can, with things such as the agbada which has roots in Tuareg clothes. Igbo clothes were also indigenous and Igbo tailors and weavers could replicate any thing they saw. Including indigenously made pantaloons.

Then the ridiculous Igala origin theory for parts of Igboland when in reality Igala is a baby ethnicity compared to Igbo. As it was created in the 14th century by Wukari migration into Igboland and other ethnicities(it wasn’t only Igboland). And they even recognise that Igbo consisted of part of their creation.

Igbo is an identity marked by common ancestors, the Igboid language group, the 4 market days, the Igbo religion etc. It is the best way of describing this mass of ancestry and culture.

you have made a very intelligent analysis of the Igbo question. Most of your submissions cannot be argued against if we look at things as a snapshot of the present times. But I would rather go back in time to before colonialization and move forward to present times

As you would agree with me, in precolonial times, to the people regarded as Igbo today, there was nothing like Igbo identity. As you alluded, they were decentralized, independent clans having no central authority. There is also no record of these people calling themselves any group name. Therefore, there was little binding factor beside the mutually intelligible language they spoke(today known as Igbo) , though of varying dialects
There is also no proof that the people that speak Igbo today are of common ancestry. To the contrary, evidences abound to show that some igbo speaking people migrated from the Benin to their present locations, particularly the Western Igbo speakers and the Onitshas. In Aboh for example, the original dwellers of the land were the Akarais who were displaced by the edo migrants to areas around Aboh, where they live to this day. That this is the oral history of Aboh and the fact that the Akarais are known makes the Aboh migration story irrefutable. There are also some people that migrated form Igala region. Again at Aboh, which is a heterogenous community, there are families that know for a fact that their forefathers came from Igala(again,irrefutable), some Isoko, some Ijaw etc. So the common ancestry claim is false using the Aboh example
Now, i do not believe that a people have to be of common ancestry to form an ethnic group, and I also believe that there is an emerging Igbo identity, Infact, an Igbo identity has emerged already from people, probably of different ancestry, but not all Igbo speaking people belong to this identity and I will explain in subsequent post

Meanwhile, i do not know why it seems like i get temporarily banned from posting on the culture section sometimes?

Cc bigfrancis21

The English Example

The people of England are of at least 5 ancestries: Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians. Now, after many years of internal wars from within and without, these people are united under one ruler. They have evolved to become the English people and i don't think any of them deny being English.

However, in the case of Igbo speaking tribes of Africa, there is no precolonial history of them being united as one people. Infact, different Igbo speaking clans were capturing themselves to sell as slaves during the slave trade era which is why most people sold as slaves from the geographical space called Nigeria today were Eastern Igbo speaking tribes. If the Igbos had a unifying factor or authority other than language, this would not have been possible. It is also recorded in historical archives that the igbos speaking slaves in those times were surprised when they were called Igbos.

The precolonial Igbo speakers were independent tribes with minimal mutual connection besides language and this affects them in Nigerian politics even today

Post-slave trade(the 19th century)

Following the abolition of slave trade, the British, in an attempt to transit to more legitimate trade decided to make incursions into the hinterland. During the slave trade period, the whites did not go into the hinterland to purchase slaves but only dealed with the Coastal tribes who acted as middle. Therefore, even though most of the slaves sold at the Bonny and Calabar ports were Igbos, the free Igbos did not really have contact with the whites.
To promote legitimate trade, the British set up trade posts in the Igbo hinterland. These trade-posts. They would send European goods to these trade posts and receive payment for the goods later after they are sold. This opened up the Igbo hinterland to trade(the Igbos did not engage in distant trade before this time). This led me to conclude that the Igbos were the biggest beneficiaries of colonialism.

Why am I relating the above?

The colonial activities actually had an impact on the Eastern Igbo speakers dynamics. For the first time, they started moving out of their region to distant areas and started mass interaction with other people. Many moved all across the colonial Nigeria as business men and established themselves. Even though they went to these places with their clannish ways of life(they would hardly marry people outside their clan), they were seen as one- Igbos by their neighbours.

IgbuduMonkey:
you have made a very intelligent analysis of the Igbo question. Most of your submissions cannot be argued against if we look at things as a snapshot of the present times. But I would rather go back in time to before colonialization and move forward to present times

As you would agree with me, in precolonial times, to the people regarded as Igbo today, there was nothing like Igbo identity. As you alluded, they were decentralized, independent clans having no central authority. There is also no record of these people calling themselves any group name. Therefore, there was little binding factor beside the mutually intelligible language they spoke(today known as Igbo) , though of varying dialects
There is also no proof that the people that speak Igbo today are of common ancestry. To the contrary, evidences abound to show that some igbo speaking people migrated from the Benin to their present locations, particularly the Western Igbo speakers and the Onitshas. In Aboh for example, the original dwellers of the land were the Akarais who were displaced by the edo migrants to areas around Aboh, where they live to this day. That this is the oral history of Aboh and the fact that the Akarais are known makes the Aboh migration story irrefutable. There are also some people that migrated form Igala region. Again at Aboh, which is a heterogenous community, there are families that know for a fact that their forefathers came from Igala(again,irrefutable), some Isoko, some Ijaw etc. So the common ancestry claim is false using the Aboh example
Now, i do not believe that a people have to be of common ancestry to form an ethnic group, and I also believe that there is an emerging Igbo identity, Infact, an Igbo identity has emerged already from people, probably of different ancestry, but not all Igbo speaking people belong to this identity and I will explain in subsequent post

Meanwhile, i do not know why it seems like i get temporarily banned from posting on the culture section sometimes?

Cc bigfrancis21

I had some work to do but now I am freer so sorry for the delay. Your argument would have been very good if only you remembered that all ethnic groups have these migration stories. Including eastern Igbo just with different names listed. You say that Igbo people do not have common ancestry. That is wrong. Igbo is simply so large a group as too have been able to diversify over time and simultaneously do not have empire ambitions (even those with a king). There is certainly record of them calling themselves that group name. You simply attribute them to somewhere in particular. No point in arguing in circles though.

Your argument is forgetting that Igbo are not close to being the only group of people who didnt fully realise that identity fully until the modern age. It doesnt mean they didnt exist as a people before the modern age. Only that Yoruba, Hausa and Edo peoples had more direct contact with white people and so their place in written history was cemented earlier.

IgbuduMonkey:
you have made a very intelligent analysis of the Igbo question. Most of your submissions cannot be argued against if we look at things as a snapshot of the present times. But I would rather go back in time to before colonialization and move forward to present times

As you would agree with me, in precolonial times, to the people regarded as Igbo today, there was nothing like Igbo identity. As you alluded, they were decentralized, independent clans having no central authority. There is also no record of these people calling themselves any group name. Therefore, there was little binding factor beside the mutually intelligible language they spoke(today known as Igbo) , though of varying dialects
There is also no proof that the people that speak Igbo today are of common ancestry. To the contrary, evidences abound to show that some igbo speaking people migrated from the Benin to their present locations, particularly the Western Igbo speakers and the Onitshas. In Aboh for example, the original dwellers of the land were the Akarais who were displaced by the edo migrants to areas around Aboh, where they live to this day. That this is the oral history of Aboh and the fact that the Akarais are known makes the Aboh migration story irrefutable. There are also some people that migrated form Igala region. Again at Aboh, which is a heterogenous community, there are families that know for a fact that their forefathers came from Igala(again,irrefutable), some Isoko, some Ijaw etc. So the common ancestry claim is false using the Aboh example
Now, i do not believe that a people have to be of common ancestry to form an ethnic group, and I also believe that there is an emerging Igbo identity, Infact, an Igbo identity has emerged already from people, probably of different ancestry, but not all Igbo speaking people belong to this identity and I will explain in subsequent post

Meanwhile, i do not know why it seems like i get temporarily banned from posting on the culture section sometimes?

Cc bigfrancis21

You made good points. Thank you for mentioning me in this quote.

As regard your question on getting banned, when you make extra long posts, the bot seems to flag such down as spam and it triggers the ban. Avoid making very long posts or posts with too many links in them.

On the Igbo identity, you did raise important points.

However, the Igbo story/history has been told mostly from the point of settlers and hardly from the point of view of the host communities. Igboland did experience plenty influx of people from other tribes/other language speakers. Back in the day there was no common ethnic identity. People's identity was tied to their villages and all people knew was the dialect that they spoke and the village that they came from. Onitsha and next-door Obosi did not see themselves as the same. Owerri and Mbaise too. People crossed linguistic boundaries into others, settled, adopted new languages and the identity of the village/clan that they found themselves in.

Speaking about migration, what has been failed to ask is, why did ancient Igboland seem to attract many settlers from Edo, Ijaw, Igala and even Yoruba? Igala people had a strong penchant and love for migrating downwards to Igboland. Texts about ancient Igboland indicated that the land was very rich and fertile for agriculture, perhaps some settlers migrated down to Igboland and settled for agricultural reasons?

Now unlike other major tribes, Igbo land had no central authority or king. Every Igbo village had autonomous authority over themselves. According to Bini history, majority of runaways from Bini land seemed to be fleeing persecution from their harsh Oba towards the East where they settled in Esan (E san fia - they have fled) land, all the way East to Ika land. Perhaps they found the lack of a central authority in Igboland (which would remind them of where they fled from) and the idea of being in control of their own affairs very attractive? The Yorubas who settled in Ugbodu Delta State have a similar history of fleeing persecution and these migrants fled towards the East where they settled. In today's language parlance, these settlers would be considered asylum seekers who sought refuge in Igboland, were granted refugee status and naturalized within their host communities. As it is with all migrations, the migrants all had to adapt into their host environment, linguistically and culturally especially if they had to be recognized as bonafide citizens of the land. In most countries today, USA, Germany etc. as a migrant applying for citizenship (not permanent residency) of these countries, you must demonstrate fluency in their native language to be granted citizenship. Being a citizen implies that you identify fully with the community that you find yourself in, in all ramifications. These migrants met native Igbo speakers when they arrived and they acculturated linguistically and culturally. In history, migrants barely displaced the native language of their host communities - they always had to acculturate into their host communities, however imprints of their original ancestry may remain. The exception to this is if the migrants met bare lands, took ownership and settled within (example Opobo Rivers State). The presence of Igbo language all over Delta Igbo indicates who the original owners were. The characteristic of modern-day Igbos travelling all over Nigeria to do business and spreading their language came after British occupation of Nigeria in the 1900s. Between the 1500s to 1800s when most of the migrations took place in Igboland, Igbos were mostly farmers, hunters etc. living within their villages and barely traveled out of their regions, except for those lost to slavery.

We do recognize that Delta Igbo area received and hosted several migrants from other tribes and the ancestry of these people are valid. The population of these migrants compared to the original owners was minimal, which further ensured that the host community native language prevailed. However, for the sake of simplicity what identifies you today is the culture and language that you currently uphold. If you speak Igbo, practice Igbo customs exactly the same as those across the River Niger, bear Igbo names etc. then you are classified as Igbo. Migrations to/from Igboland isn't unique to Igboland. It occurred worldwide in the past. England, France, Portugal, Spain etc. all have similar migration tales. Imagine the chaos that would be if a native speaker of Spanish from Spain with full Spanish names tells you he's British because his forefathers migrated from England in the 1700s. Or Louise de BeauRegard from France who speaks only French and practices French culture tells you that he isn't French but Spanish because his forefather came from Spain in 1876.

President Zelensky of Ukraine is a Ukrainian and identifies as Ukrainian and speaks the native language, however he is of Jewish ancestry. In other words, Zelensky is a Ukrainian of Jewish ancestry. Therefore, it is totally ok to say, I am an Igbo person of Bini or Igala ancestry. There is nothing wrong with that.

ChebeNdigboCalm:


I had some work to do but now I am freer so sorry for the delay. Your argument would have been very good if only you remembered that all ethnic groups have these migration stories. Including eastern Igbo just with different names listed. You say that Igbo people do not have common ancestry. That is wrong. Igbo is simply so large a group as too have been able to diversify over time and simultaneously do not have empire ambitions (even those with a king). There is certainly record of them calling themselves that group name. You simply attribute them to somewhere in particular. No point in arguing in circles though.

Your argument is forgetting that Igbo are not close to being the only group of people who didnt fully realise that identity fully until the modern age. It doesnt mean they didnt exist as a people before the modern age. Only that Yoruba, Hausa and Edo peoples had more direct contact with white people and so their place in written history was cemented earlier.

The people you call Igbos today are not of a common ancestry, there is no arguing that fact. And Yes, the Igbo speaking people are perhaps not the only people who didn't fully realize the identity attached to their language before the present times but they are ones that didn't realize it in modern times. You hardly hear any Yoruba speaking people deny being Yoruba, even the Yoruba speakers carved into the Northern region e.g the Kabbas. Even some bilingual tribes in Kogi state that speak Yoruba as a second language proudly proclaim themselves to be Yorubas and are accepted by the core Yorubas as fully Yoruba

bigfrancis21:


You made good points. Thank you for mentioning me in this quote.

As regard your question on getting banned, when you make extra long posts, the bot seems to flag such down as spam and it triggers the ban. Avoid making very long posts or posts with too many links in them.

On the Igbo identity, you did raise important points.

However, the Igbo story/history has been told mostly from the point of settlers and hardly from the point of view of the host communities. Igboland did experience plenty influx of people from other tribes/other language speakers. Back in the day there was no common ethnic identity. People's identity was tied to their villages and all people knew was the dialect that they spoke and the village that they came from. Onitsha and next-door Obosi did not see themselves as the same. Owerri and Mbaise too. People crossed linguistic boundaries into others, settled, adopted new languages and the identity of the village/clan that they found themselves in.

Speaking about migration, what has been failed to ask is, why did ancient Igboland seem to attract many settlers from Edo, Ijaw, Igala and even Yoruba? Igala people had a strong penchant and love for migrating downwards to Igboland. Texts about ancient Igboland indicated that the land was very rich and fertile for agriculture, perhaps some settlers migrated down to Igboland and settled for agricultural reasons?

Now unlike other major tribes, Igbo land had no central authority or king. Every Igbo village had autonomous authority over themselves. According to Bini history, majority of runaways from Bini land seemed to be fleeing persecution from their harsh Oba towards the East where they settled in Esan (E san fia - they have fled) land, all the way East to Ika land. Perhaps they found the lack of a central authority in Igboland (which would remind them of where they fled from) and the idea of being in control of their own affairs very attractive? The Yorubas who settled in Ugbodu Delta State have a similar history of fleeing persecution and these migrants fled towards the East where they settled. In today's language parlance, these settlers would be considered asylum seekers who sought refuge in Igboland, were granted refugee status and naturalized within their host communities. As it is with all migrations, the migrants all had to adapt into their host environment, linguistically and culturally especially if they had to be recognized as bonafide citizens of the land. In most countries today, USA, Germany etc. as a migrant applying for citizenship (not permanent residency) of these countries, you must demonstrate fluency in their native language to be granted citizenship. Being a citizen implies that you identify fully with the community that you find yourself in, in all ramifications. These migrants met native Igbo speakers when they arrived and they acculturated linguistically and culturally. In history, migrants barely displaced the native language of their host communities - they always had to acculturate into their host communities, however imprints of their original ancestry may remain. The exception to this is if the migrants met bare lands, took ownership and settled within (example Opobo Rivers State). The presence of Igbo language all over Delta Igbo indicates who the original owners were. The characteristic of modern-day Igbos travelling all over Nigeria to do business and spreading their language came after British occupation of Nigeria in the 1900s. Between the 1500s to 1800s when most of the migrations took place in Igboland, Igbos were mostly farmers, hunters etc. living within their villages and barely traveled out of their regions, except for those lost to slavery.

We do recognize that Delta Igbo area received and hosted several migrants from other tribes and the ancestry of these people are valid. The population of these migrants compared to the original owners was minimal, which further ensured that the host community native language prevailed. However, for the sake of simplicity what identifies you today is the culture and language that you currently uphold. If you speak Igbo, practice Igbo customs exactly the same as those across the River Niger, bear Igbo names etc. then you are classified as Igbo. Migrations to/from Igboland isn't unique to Igboland. It occurred worldwide in the past. England, France, Portugal, Spain etc. all have similar migration tales. Imagine the chaos that would be if a native speaker of Spanish from Spain with full Spanish names tells you he's British because his forefathers migrated from England in the 1700s. Or Louise de BeauRegard from France who speaks only French and practices French culture tells you that he isn't French but Spanish because his forefather came from Spain in 1876.

President Zelensky of Ukraine is a Ukrainian and identifies as Ukrainian and speaks the native language, however he is of Jewish ancestry. In other words, Zelensky is a Ukrainian of Jewish ancestry. Therefore, it is totally ok to say, I am an Igbo person of Bini or Igala ancestry. There is nothing wrong with that.

Great points. I like that we seem to be reaching a consensus.
Now, you must understand that the level of migration to the vicinity around the Niger River was massive as a result of the importance of this river to trade. The language spoken around the region would lead me to believe that the aboriginals were most likely Igbo speakers. It also seems very likely that the Igbo speakers around here either did not know how to explore the Niger or were not interested.
There was an obvious change in the sociocultural dynamics in most of these regions along the Niger, enough to markedly differentiate them from the other Igbo speakers as the culture of the people here became an admixture of the culture of multiple people including culture developed naturally to live the new reality. Also, the economic and political events of colonialization differentiated these people even further. The early acceptance of Christianity by the Igbos and the successful commercial understanding between the Igbos and the British in the late 1800s which led to the commerce consciousness of the Igbos left a defining mark on the Igbos too. Hence the average Igbo today is seen as a good trader and a Catholic or an Anglican. The western Igbo speakers were not so influenced.
The Civil war is the last event that fully differentiated the Igbos. This is not as the Igbo claim- that the so called Igbo denial os because the Igbos lost the civil war. It is because the majority of the Western Igbo speakers were not pro-Biafra(maybe mostly neutral) and did not have the war experience like the Igbos. So today, the fallout of that war: loathing/lack of trust for Yorubas, memory of the war passed to generation etc defines the Igbos but are not shared by many western Igbo speaking tribes

In conclusion, many Igboid speakers have evolved into tribes of their own as the independent Igbo clans of precolonial times have emerged as one Igbo people

IgbuduMonkey:
Great points. I like that we seem to be reaching a consensus.
Now, you must understand that the level of migration to the vicinity around the Niger River was massive as a result of the importance of this river to trade. The language spoken around the region would lead me to believe that the aboriginals were most likely Igbo speakers. It also seems very likely that the Igbo speakers around here either did not know how to explore the Niger or were not interested.
There was an obvious change in the sociocultural dynamics in most of these regions along the Niger, enough to markedly differentiate them from the other Igbo speakers as the culture of the people here became an admixture of the culture of multiple people including culture developed naturally to live the new reality. Also, the economic and political events of colonialization differentiated these people even further. The early acceptance of Christianity by the Igbos and the successful commercial understanding between the Igbos and the British in the late 1800s which led to the commerce consciousness of the Igbos left a defining mark on the Igbos too. Hence the average Igbo today is seen as a good trader and a Catholic or an Anglican. The western Igbo speakers were not so influenced.
The Civil war is the last event that fully differentiated the Igbos. This is not as the Igbo claim- that the so called Igbo denial os because the Igbos lost the civil war. It is because the majority of the Western Igbo speakers were not pro-Biafra(maybe mostly neutral) and did not have the war experience like the Igbos. So today, the fallout of that war: loathing/lack of trust for Yorubas, memory of the war passed to generation etc defines the Igbos but are not shared by many western Igbo speaking tribes

In conclusion, many Igboid speakers have evolved into tribes of their own as the independent Igbo clans of precolonial times have emerged as one Igbo people

You've raised good points.

Before the war, there were dissenting voices within some groups in Igboland about being non-Igbo or some groups had issues with being called 'Igbo'. For the Western Igbos, 'Igbo' (with falling tones) meant 'slave', being that Western Igbo did not actively participate in slavery compared to Eastern Igbo, somehow 'Igbo' became synonymous with 'slave'. So when these groups pre-1967 would have issues with being called 'Igbo', it was due to that 'slavery stigma' that the name came with. Any adult Anioma speaker born before 1967 can easily confirm their original understanding of 'Igbo'. The fallout of the civil war only served to magnify/expand that resistance.

I do agree that certain areas of Western Igbo did receive many inhabitants, but these areas are mostly limited to areas around the fringes of Delta Igbo land. Perhaps less than 30% of the entire Anioma Land was settled by foreigners, which is not significant enough to change the overall identity of their host communities. Another mistake I often see some Anioma people make is to recall their past Kings (some of whom were Bini sent by the Oba to rule other them) as evidence of their Bini ancestry while forgetting that the Oba often always sent people, often Bini, to rule over conquered areas, collect tax and remit to the Oba of Bini. In other words, in an Anioma village subject to Bini rule, while the royal house may be of Bini ancestry, the natives proper was of nearly Igbo ancestry instead.

It's true that Western Igboland was not originally part of Biafra, however understand that Western Igbo was under the Western protectorate and Ojukwu was in charge of the Eastern protectorate, thus his legal powers were limited to the Eastern protectorate and therefore he could not have legally declared a portion of Western protectorate as independent from Nigeria (an area he had no legal powers over) alongside the Eastern protectorate where he had legal powers over.

ChebeNdigboCalm:
You say that Igbo people do not have common ancestry. That is wrong.

We've reviewed this on this forum for over a decade and still continue to rehash it? C'mon, IgbuduMonkey is right. The people known as Igbo today are not of common ancestry. No intellectual gymnastics can change that. Let me help make it clear to you.

According to the field of linguistics, all surviving Igbo speech forms are traced to a shared linguistic innovation that is dated between 4,000 - 6,000 years ago. In this very forum, we also identified that this linguistic innovation occurred outside of what we now call "Igboland". However, there has been continuous human habitation in "Igboland" for at least 50,000 years. How do you account for those inhabitants that predate the innovation of proto-Igbo language and had been living in "Igboland" for over 50,000 years? You cannot. Your only option is to accept that modern Igbo speakers are of mixed ancestry.

1) Original inhabitants of what is now "Igboland", who could have been either different people or the same people. We may never truly know.

2) Original Igbo-speaking population that entered the region perhaps 3000 - 4000 years ago and linguistically overwhelmed original inhabitants

3) All other incoming populations between 3000 years ago to present day that eventually adopted an Igbo speech form (there are so many oral traditions for this that I should not even have to review it).

Simply put, there isn't a single claim of "common Igbo ancestry" that can withstand even basic scrutiny.

To answer the main question of this topic. I'll echo what RedboneSmith said. "Igbo" is primarily a linguistic grouping. Secondarily a "cultural" grouping and tertiarily an "ethnic" grouping.

The linguistic grouping is easy to see. It's not hard to identify a community that shares the same lingusitic innovations as modern Igbo. It is rather distinctive, once you analyze the lexicon and SAVO constituent order. Most Igbo speech forms are closely related, suggesting one primary proto-Igbo branch that survived in the area.

The cultural grouping only has relevance for modern Igbo-speaking people. I say this because we no longer engage with over 90% of our pre-colonial culture. All that is left is just a handful of things that survived into present day like iri ji, igo oji, ofo, etc, because they were shared by enough people and given enough relevance. However, even among these surviving elements, we see that not all Igbo cultures engaged in it. Is it iri ji? There are at least three communities I know of that do not historically do it. Is it igo oji? There procedure is rather different from community to community, and there are different beliefs with respect to the relevance of certain kola with specific numbers of lobes. Is it ofo? I know of at least two communities that do not have this "Igbo staff of office". Any reasonable person who encounters this will quickly understand that culture is a less-relevant tool for identifying what is "Igbo" and what is not. It's only because of the remnants that survive that we can even claim such a thing as "Igbo culture". Considering how independent the communities were, I would not be surprised if pre-colonial Igbo culture ended up being vastly different between specific regions, or possibly within a 5 - 10 kilometer radius.

Finally, the ethnic grouping is so much in contention that it is obvious all Igbo-speaking people do not share the same idea of what it means to be "Igbo". This ethinc grouping is relevant primarily for the group of communities that inhabit what is currently called the "SE geopolitical zone", and even then, it is still an afterthought for some communities.

Out of these three factors, linguistic, cultural and ethnic, the only consistent way to define Igbo is as a "lingusitic group". It is the only definition that is relevant to all Igbo-speaking communities.

IgbuduMonkey:
The people you call Igbos today are not of a common ancestry, there is no arguing that fact. And Yes, the Igbo speaking people are perhaps not the only people who didn't fully realize the identity attached to their language before the present times but they are ones that didn't realize it in modern times. You hardly hear any Yoruba speaking people deny being Yoruba, even the Yoruba speakers carved into the Northern region e.g the Kabbas. Even some bilingual tribes in Kogi state that speak Yoruba as a second language proudly proclaim themselves to be Yorubas and are accepted by the core Yorubas as fully Yoruba

did you even understand anything?
It seems you're new to nairaland .
Every old nairalander knows that we have debated this and closed the chapter.
Stop opening unnecessary threads instead go and search for old ones to learn from.

ChinenyeN:


We've reviewed this on this forum for over a decade and still continue to rehash it? C'mon, IgbuduMonkey is right. The people known as Igbo today are not of common ancestry. No intellectual gymnastics can change that. Let me help make it clear to you.

According to the field of linguistics, all surviving Igbo speech forms are traced to a shared linguistic innovation that is dated between 4,000 - 6,000 years ago. In this very forum, we also identified that this linguistic innovation occurred outside of what we now call "Igboland". However, there has been continuous human habitation in "Igboland" for at least 50,000 years. How do you account for those inhabitants that predate the innovation of proto-Igbo language and had been living in "Igboland" for over 50,000 years? You cannot. Your only option is to accept that modern Igbo speakers are of mixed ancestry.

1) Original inhabitants of what is now "Igboland", who could have been either different people or the same people. We may never truly know.

2) Original Igbo-speaking population that entered the region perhaps 3000 - 4000 years ago and linguistically overwhelmed original inhabitants

3) All other incoming populations between 3000 years ago to present day that eventually adopted an Igbo speech form (there are so many oral traditions for this that I should not even have to review it).

Simply put, there isn't a single claim of "common Igbo ancestry" that can withstand even basic scrutiny.

Seeing that I am new to this forum. Telling me about a supposed topic that I should know has been reviewed severally is useless. Of course we have "mixed ancestry" but what is being suggested is that Igbo people are less related than equally sized ethnicities such as yoruba, etc. We are even similar genetically so of course we have a common ancestor whether several groups migrated to the same area or not. Over time we intermixed and all have ties to each other. Its as if you didnt read what I said. If Igbo as a group can be considered very seperate people then the same has to be applied to most groups on this planet. What IS being suggested is that there is no Igbo people like there are Hausa or Yoruba.

ChinenyeN:
To answer the main question of this topic. I'll echo what RedboneSmith said. "Igbo" is primarily a linguistic grouping. Secondarily a "cultural" grouping and tertiarily an "ethnic" grouping.

The linguistic grouping is easy to see. It's not hard to identify a community that shares the same lingusitic innovations as modern Igbo. It is rather distinctive, once you analyze the lexicon and SAVO constituent order. Most Igbo speech forms are closely related, suggesting one primary proto-Igbo branch that survived in the area.

The cultural grouping only has relevance for modern Igbo-speaking people. I say this because we no longer engage with over 90% of our pre-colonial culture. All that is left is just a handful of things that survived into present day like iri ji, igo oji, ofo, etc, because they were shared by enough people and given enough relevance. However, even among these surviving elements, we see that not all Igbo cultures engaged in it. Is it iri ji? There are at least three communities I know of that do not historically do it. Is it igo oji? There procedure is rather different from community to community, and there are different beliefs with respect to the relevance of certain kola with specific numbers of lobes. Is it ofo? I know of at least two communities that do not have this "Igbo staff of office". Any reasonable person who encounters this will quickly understand that culture is a less-relevant tool for identifying what is "Igbo" and what is not. It's only because of the remnants that survive that we can even claim such a thing as "Igbo culture". Considering how independent the communities were, I would not be surprised if pre-colonial Igbo culture ended up being vastly different between specific regions, or possibly within a 5 - 10 kilometer radius.

Finally, the ethnic grouping is so much in contention that it is obvious all Igbo-speaking people do not share the same idea of what it means to be "Igbo". This ethinc grouping is relevant primarily for the group of communities that inhabit what is currently called the "SE geopolitical zone", and even then, it is still an afterthought for some communities.

Out of these three factors, linguistic, cultural and ethnic, the only consistent way to define Igbo is as a "lingusitic group". It is the only definition that is relevant to all Igbo-speaking communities.

Similarly I can go to another culture and find villages that miss the checklist in some way. Such is the way of life. There are always outliers to some factor in some way. You cant easily categorise things but you can find regularities. Similar to the whole common ancestor discussion.

ChinenyeN:
To answer the main question of this topic. I'll echo what RedboneSmith said. "Igbo" is primarily a linguistic grouping. Secondarily a "cultural" grouping and tertiarily an "ethnic" grouping.

The linguistic grouping is easy to see. It's not hard to identify a community that shares the same lingusitic innovations as modern Igbo. It is rather distinctive, once you analyze the lexicon and SAVO constituent order. Most Igbo speech forms are closely related, suggesting one primary proto-Igbo branch that survived in the area.

The cultural grouping only has relevance for modern Igbo-speaking people. I say this because we no longer engage with over 90% of our pre-colonial culture. All that is left is just a handful of things that survived into present day like iri ji, igo oji, ofo, etc, because they were shared by enough people and given enough relevance. However, even among these surviving elements, we see that not all Igbo cultures engaged in it. Is it iri ji? There are at least three communities I know of that do not historically do it. Is it igo oji? There procedure is rather different from community to community, and there are different beliefs with respect to the relevance of certain kola with specific numbers of lobes. Is it ofo? I know of at least two communities that do not have this "Igbo staff of office". Any reasonable person who encounters this will quickly understand that culture is a less-relevant tool for identifying what is "Igbo" and what is not. It's only because of the remnants that survive that we can even claim such a thing as "Igbo culture". Considering how independent the communities were, I would not be surprised if pre-colonial Igbo culture ended up being vastly different between specific regions, or possibly within a 5 - 10 kilometer radius.

Finally, the ethnic grouping is so much in contention that it is obvious all Igbo-speaking people do not share the same idea of what it means to be "Igbo". This ethinc grouping is relevant primarily for the group of communities that inhabit what is currently called the "SE geopolitical zone", and even then, it is still an afterthought for some communities.

Out of these three factors, linguistic, cultural and ethnic, the only consistent way to define Igbo is as a "lingusitic group". It is the only definition that is relevant to all Igbo-speaking communities.

You have aced it. It is very difficult to add anything to this. Thank you my brother for this post, i am bookmarking it already. Chebendigbocalm, your thread should close here, question has been answered

IgbuduMonkey:
You have aced it. It is very difficult to add anything to this. Thank you my brother for this post, i am bookmarking it already. Chebendigbocalm, your thread should close here, question has been answered

I understand that you fully agree. All well and good. But whilst it has taught me, it doesn't mean that it is objectively fully correct. I do not know how many examples you can give that even survive this standard you apply. As in most identities are supposedly abstract and hard to define. Most people have lost 90% of premodern culture. Most people have dialectal differences. Most people are made up of several thousand immigrant groups. Most people didnt cement their identity until premodern times.

At one point you used England for your own point and all it did was strengthen mine. I mean who are the English really? In the end Igbo are an ethnic group just one that values individualistic ideals more than others.

In the end one thing is for sure, if Igbo exists, Aboh is Igbo. You cant conclude Igbo is a linguistic group then simultaneously exclude Aboh for being no different from other Igbo groups. The only thing you can claim is "Igbo doesnt exist" if you really want to. Not say the non existent Igbo people are wrongly claiming Olaudah.

The igbo have three waves of migration
1) the aboriginals: these are the people who have no account of migrating from anywhere. They have lived in their land for hundreds of years.

2) The secondary migrants: These are the people who originally are igbo but migrated out of igboland in search of greener pastures but because of one reason or the other, they later came back to the igbo country. Example: onitsha people

3) The non-igbos who migrated into the igbo country from neighbouring places like bini,igala,ibibio etc, these people got assimilated into the larger group and are now considered igbo even though they still keep record of where they come from.

Hmm