duruZed:
The day they stop bearing igbo names eg emeka chinedu etc i start taking them serious.

What of Isoko that are bearing the same names with Urhobo, same traditions, custom, food, marriage rites and speak a very similar language yet they said they are not Urhobo? Urhobo allowed them be.

Afam4eva:
I'm sure we're not new to the whole Ikwerre-Igbo argument and this has been going for so long and nobody from either places are ready to concede. I'm here to tell you why.

I will start by stating my personal opinion on the matter.

If you have followed me on Nairaland, you will know that in the earlier years of Nairaland, I felt it was stupid not to think of Ikwerre as Igbo but in recent years, I've changed my perception which is not to discount the Ikwerre and Igbo link but rather to concede the fact that people have the right to call themselves what they so choose. I mean, it can be insulting to tell someone who they are even though they claim otherwise. It doesn't matter the reason why such a person thinks he's not Igbo whether factual or plain lies. Afteral Ethnic Groups are to a large extent an artificial creation.

Now, back to my argument...

The reason most Ikwerres say they are not Igbo is visible the moment you cross Ore(in Yorubaland). It is evident that it was not only Igbo groups that were not centralized. Even around Edo state where you had the famous Benin empire, that was what it was, an empire. However, some different groups in that empire did not see themselves as coming from the same stock. That is why despite the glaring similarities between Bini and Esan, they are distinct groups despite being in the same state.

It is the same story in Delta state where despite the closeness in language between Urhobos and Isokos, they are classed as 2 different groups when one could be a dialect of the other.

Akwa Ibom and Cross River is another typical example. When you hear people speaking languages from those 2 states which most Nigerians call 'Calabar', it sounds pretty the same but people from the groups will tel you that they are either Efik, Ibibio, Annang or even Oron.

So, with these examples, you can see that a lot of these groups were not centralized and as such do not favour coming together to form a large formidable group.

The same thing can be said of Ikwerre and some other Igboid groups that distance themselves from the Igbo tag. They see Igbos the way isokos see Urhobos and the same way Efiiks see Ibibios. They know they have a lot of similarities with each other but they have created an identity no matter how little and that is why they would rather be their own group.

Having said that, there's a small difference in the relationship between urhobos and Isokos, Efiks, Ibibios and Annangs to the relationship between Igbos and Ikwerres.

While the former groupps are to a large extent cordial to each other, it's a tricky situation between Igbos and Ikwerres. Yes, Igbos and Ikwerres mix, marry and all but Ikwerres have the feeling that Igbo want to dominate them. They could be right or wrong but you can't exactly false that entire premise because they can't really understand why Igbos can't let them be who they want to be without forcing it down their throat.

That's why a lot of Ikwerres who can speak central Igbo are even wary of speaking of Speaking Igbo to Igbo people because that may make whoever they're speaking it with think that they're Igbos. That's why you notice that Ikwerres find every possible thing to further move away from the Igbo tag. Even if it means claiming to have migrated from Benin.

So, in conclusion, Ikwerre could be an Igbo dialect in another universe but the way things stand right now, it's almost impossible and their wish to be called Ikwerres should not be disrespected.

Thank you Afam for being this objective in your analysis. It is one truth that a lot of Igbos have refused to assimilate into their head. I know for sure that original forefathers of Ikwerre came from deep inside Igboland but have grown a new identity over time which I believe should be respected.

Afam4eva:
I'm sure we're not new to the whole Ikwerre-Igbo argument and this has been going for so long and nobody from either places are ready to concede. I'm here to tell you why.

I will start by stating my personal opinion on the matter.

If you have followed me on Nairaland, you will know that in the earlier years of Nairaland, I felt it was stupid not to think of Ikwerre as Igbo but in recent years, I've changed my perception which is not to discount the Ikwerre and Igbo link but rather to concede the fact that people have the right to call themselves what they so choose. I mean, it can be insulting to tell someone who they are even though they claim otherwise. It doesn't matter the reason why such a person thinks he's not Igbo whether factual or plain lies. Afteral Ethnic Groups are to a large extent an artificial creation.

Now, back to my argument...

The reason most Ikwerres say they are not Igbo is visible the moment you cross Ore(in Yorubaland). It is evident that it was not only Igbo groups that were not centralized. Even around Edo state where you had the famous Benin empire, that was what it was, an empire. However, some different groups in that empire did not see themselves as coming from the same stock. That is why despite the glaring similarities between Bini and Esan, they are distinct groups despite being in the same state.

It is the same story in Delta state where despite the closeness in language between Urhobos and Isokos, they are classed as 2 different groups when one could be a dialect of the other.

Akwa Ibom and Cross River is another typical example. When you hear people speaking languages from those 2 states which most Nigerians call 'Calabar', it sounds pretty the same but people from the groups will tel you that they are either Efik, Ibibio, Annang or even Oron.

So, with these examples, you can see that a lot of these groups were not centralized and as such do not favour coming together to form a large formidable group.

The same thing can be said of Ikwerre and some other Igboid groups that distance themselves from the Igbo tag. They see Igbos the way isokos see Urhobos and the same way Efiiks see Ibibios. They know they have a lot of similarities with each other but they have created an identity no matter how little and that is why they would rather be their own group.

Having said that, there's a small difference in the relationship between urhobos and Isokos, Efiks, Ibibios and Annangs to the relationship between Igbos and Ikwerres.

While the former groupps are to a large extent cordial to each other, it's a tricky situation between Igbos and Ikwerres. Yes, Igbos and Ikwerres mix, marry and all but Ikwerres have the feeling that Igbo want to dominate them. They could be right or wrong but you can't exactly false that entire premise because they can't really understand why Igbos can't let them be who they want to be without forcing it down their throat.

That's why a lot of Ikwerres who can speak central Igbo are even wary of speaking of Speaking Igbo to Igbo people because that may make whoever they're speaking it with think that they're Igbos. That's why you notice that Ikwerres find every possible thing to further move away from the Igbo tag. Even if it means claiming to have migrated from Benin.

So, in conclusion, Ikwerre could be an Igbo dialect in another universe but the way things stand right now, it's almost impossible and their wish to be called Ikwerres should not be disrespected.

What I would like to add to your analysis is that if an ethnic groups forges a new identity under a formalized dialect it does not negate the fact that they indeed emanate from the same grouping or lineage as the group they seceded or segregated from. This is the ultimate point that should be addressed here.

Other peoples in Africa express this same phenomena but are able to link themselves and understand that they originate from or are subsets of the same people biological, culturally e.t.c. more so than other groups around them. Case in point. The Zulu and Xhosa tribes of South Africa, the Swazi tribes of Swaziland and the Ndebele tribes of Zimbabwe all emanate form the same Lineage the Nguni, though they speak formal dialects and identify as separate ethnic groups( under clan/totem names) the languages are mutually intelligeable to each other and they are all under this Paternal lineage. Therefore:

Do the Anioma, Ikwerre, Etche, Igbo( as one formalized dialect group around the South East) come from the same direct lineage? This is without a doubt. DNA will prove this as I can almost guarantee that if an Ikwerre man and an Anambra man both take Paternal DNA tests they would both fall under the same groupings than from the Hausa or Yoruba peoples.

The confusion comes in when the word "igbo" is used as other formalized dialects around the SE have chosen to unite as a unit and the others in the surrounding areas have not. This does not however change who they began as.

You can change your cultural identity, your clothes, your name and even fabricate your own history but you cannot change your BLOOD SIGNATURE.

This is the truth and no matter how anyone tries to dance around this subject they cannot subvert nature's indelible marker on them.

Self determination is a human right and therefore you can be who or what you want but do it with all sense of honesty.

FACTS!

Sepukku:


What I would like to add to your analysis is that if an ethnic groups forges a new identity under a formalized dialect it does not negate the fact that they indeed emanate from the same grouping or lineage as the group they seceded or segregated from. This is the ultimate point that should be addressed here.

Other peoples in Africa express this same phenomena but are able to link themselves and understand that they originate from or are subsets of the same people biological, culturally e.t.c. more so than other groups around them. Case in point. The Zulu and Xhosa tribes of South Africa, the Swazi tribes of Swaziland and the Ndebele tribes of Zimbabwe all emanate form the same Lineage the Nguni, though they speak formal dialects and identify as separate ethnic groups( under clan/totem names) the languages are mutually intelligeable to each other and they are all under this Paternal lineage. Therefore:

Do the Anioma, Ikwerre, Etche, Igbo( as one formalized dialect group around the South East) come from the same direct lineage? This is without a doubt. DNA will prove this as I can almost guarantee that if an Ikwerre man and an Anambra man both take Paternal DNA tests they would both fall under the same groupings than from the Hausa or Yoruba peoples.

The confusion comes in when the word "igbo" is used as other formalized dialects around the SE have chosen to unite as a unit and the others in the surrounding areas have not. This does not however change who they began as.

You can change your cultural identity, your clothes, your name and even fabricate your own history but you cannot change your BLOOD SIGNATURE.

This is the truth and no matter how anyone tries to dance around this subject they cannot subvert nature's indelible marker on them.

Self determination is a human right and therefore you can be who or what you want but do it with all sense of honesty.

FACTS!

Your submission is very skewed and biased, you already concludes that certain tribes are Igbo before calling for DNA evidence.

Supposing a DNA analysis shows that all the people of southern and middle belt Nigeria are related, what name would you call them, would you then agree to be called Benin due to this blood relationship, because the name Benin is older than Igbo or should the Edo, Yoruba, Igala, Idoma etc, people that share this common blood
relationship now be called Igbo.

If you wouldn't agree to being called Benin, Igala or Idoma (all older names than Igbo), why then would you want Ikwerre or any other independent tribe outside the south east to accept the Igbo tag even if DNA shows blood relationship between these tribes and those that now call themselves Igbo.

Artificial names such as Igbo and Yoruba have to be agreed to by every one that want to be identified as such. Anioma is a collection of formerly different tribes that made up Delta North, all these tribes don't have issues being called Anioma today even though they have different heritages, Same way the old Bendelites were proud of the name Bendel. The name Igbo should be confined to south east rather than forcing tribes outside the south east to adopt it.


The name Igbo seems to be problem for those outside the south east to identify with, other tribes are not keen to associate with the people that currently goes by the social political name Igbo. The question should be why?

The Igbo can drop Igbo and adopt the name Ikwerre instead of Igbo for all the tribes in the south east, I am sure the Ikwerre people wouldn't mind. If you can't adopt Ikwerre why would you want Ikwerre to adopt Igbo identity.

samuk:


Your submission is very skewed and biased, you already concludes that certain tribes are Igbo before calling for DNA evidence.

Supposing a DNA analysis shows that all the people of southern and middle belt Nigeria are related, what name would you call them, would you then agree to be called Benin due to this blood relationship, because the name Benin is older than Igbo or should the Edo, Yoruba, Igala, Idoma etc, people that share this common blood
relationship now be called Igbo.

If you wouldn't agree to being called Benin, Igala or Idoma (all older names than Igbo), why then would you want Ikwerre or any other independent tribe outside the south east to accept the Igbo tag even if DNA shows blood relationship between these tribes and those that now call themselves Igbo.

Artificial names such as Igbo and Yoruba have to be agreed to by every one that want to be identified as such. Anioma is a collection of formerly different tribes that made up Delta North, all these tribes don't have issues being called Anioma today even though they have different heritages, Same way the old Bendelites were proud of the name Bendel. The name Igbo should be confined to south east rather than forcing tribes outside the south east to adopt it.


The name Igbo seems to be problem for those outside the south east to identify with, other tribes are not keen to associate with the people that currently goes by the social political name Igbo. The question should be why?

The Igbo can drop Igbo and adopt the name Ikwerre instead of Igbo for all the tribes in the south east, I am sure the Ikwerre people wouldn't mind. If can adopt Ikwerre why would you want Ikwerre to adopt Igbo identity.

One can see inferiority and fear every time you write. This is what Igbo has done to you.

samuk:


Your submission is very skewed and biased, you already concludes that certain tribes are Igbo before calling for DNA evidence.

Supposing a DNA analysis shows that all the people of southern and middle belt Nigeria are related, what name would you call them, would you then agree to be called Benin due to this blood relationship, because the name Benin is older than Igbo or should the Edo, Yoruba, Igala, Idoma etc, people that share this common blood
relationship now be called Igbo.

If you wouldn't agree to being called Benin, Igala or Idoma (all older names than Igbo), why then would you want Ikwerre or any other independent tribe outside the south east to accept the Igbo tag even if DNA shows blood relationship between these tribes and those that now call themselves Igbo.

Artificial names such as Igbo and Yoruba have to be agreed to by every one that want to be identified as such. Anioma is a collection of formerly different tribes that made up Delta North, all these tribes don't have issues being called Anioma today even though they have different heritages, Same way the old Bendelites were proud of the name Bendel. The name Igbo should be confined to south east rather than forcing tribes outside the south east to adopt it.


The name Igbo seems to be problem for those outside the south east to identify with, other tribes are not keen to associate with the people that currently goes by the social political name Igbo. The question should be why?

The Igbo can drop Igbo and adopt the name Ikwerre instead of Igbo for all the tribes in the south east, I am sure the Ikwerre people wouldn't mind. If can adopt Ikwerre why would you want Ikwerre to adopt Igbo identity.

I like this reply you ọtemwen.

I will be keeping it for future reference

samuk:


Your submission is very skewed and biased, you already concludes that certain tribes are Igbo before calling for DNA evidence.

Supposing a DNA analysis shows that all the people of southern and middle belt Nigeria are related, what name would you call them, would you then agree to be called Benin due to this blood relationship, because the name Benin is older than Igbo or should the Edo, Yoruba, Igala, Idoma etc, people that share this common blood
relationship now be called Igbo.

If you wouldn't agree to being called Benin, Igala or Idoma (all older names than Igbo), why then would you want Ikwerre or any other independent tribe outside the south east to accept the Igbo tag even if DNA shows blood relationship between these tribes and those that now call themselves Igbo.

Artificial names such as Igbo and Yoruba have to be agreed to by every one that want to be identified as such. Anioma is a collection of formerly different tribes that made up Delta North, all these tribes don't have issues being called Anioma today even though they have different heritages, Same way the old Bendelites were proud of the name Bendel. The name Igbo should be confined to south east rather than forcing tribes outside the south east to adopt it.


The name Igbo seems to be problem for those outside the south east to identify with, other tribes are not keen to associate with the people that currently goes by the social political name Igbo. The question should be why?

The Igbo can drop Igbo and adopt the name Ikwerre instead of Igbo for all the tribes in the south east, I am sure the Ikwerre people wouldn't mind. If can adopt Ikwerre why would you want Ikwerre to adopt Igbo identity.

This is a perspective that further buttresses the point i was making. Igbos and Ikwerres see things differently. Ikwerres see no reason why they should be called Igbo and not Igbos calling themselves Ikwerre considering that these two groups are an artificial creation. But you should also understand the perspective of some Igbos who think "Heck, we're the bigger BIA speaking group and everything that calls God 'Chukwu' should use our name".

Igbo is no new thing here please...
The name Igbo is as old as or even older than the 9th century for your information,that is even when Igbo ukwu art works were dated back to,to the 9th century,those bronze art works has Igbo cultures imprinted on them,they were actually people answering the name Igbo for centuries though not all people that answer or accepted to be part of Igbo answered the name Igbo,they probably answered there town names or village names only and first before they in the 20th century decided to be in one unit as igbo.
If ikwere does not want to answer or identify with Igbo then it's fine they can be on their own,I agree that we should respect that.

.

valirex:


I like this reply you ọtemwen.

I will be keeping it for future reference

urhwese. Thank you so so much

Easternmind:
Igbo is no new thing here please...
The name Igbo is as old as or even older than the 9th century for your information,that is even when Igbo ukwu art works were dated back to,to the 9th century,those bronze art works has Igbo cultures imprinted on them,they were actually people answering the name Igbo for centuries though not all people that answer or accepted to be part of Igbo answered the name Igbo,they probably answered there town names or village names only and first before they in the 20th century decided to be in one unit as igbo.
If ikwere does not want to answer or identify with Igbo then it's fine they can be on their own,I agree that we should respect that.

The word "Igbo" is not necessarily a new thing. What is new is using the word to refer to the people we now know as Igbo people.

samuk:


Your submission is very skewed and biased, you already concludes that certain tribes are Igbo before calling for DNA evidence.

My submission is not biased but based on deductive reasoning leading to a highly probable logical conclusion. Proximity, cultural affinities, linguistics and DNA point to a strong indicator that people with at least a majority of these factors very likely share the same origins. This is tried and tested and I am not pulling this rabbit out of a hat. The groups I mentioned have 3 of the four factors in common with DNA being the decisive variable that would seal the coffin. I am highly confident that it would if this tests were to be taken.

samuk:

Supposing a DNA analysis shows that all the people of southern and middle belt Nigeria are related, what name would you call them, would you then agree to be called Benin due to this blood relationship, because the name Benin is older than Igbo or should the Edo, Yoruba, Igala, Idoma etc, people that share this common blood
relationship now be called Igbo.

The names you mention are linguistic designations which double for self identification as well. This is not what I am talking about. The Ewe of Togo and the Yoruba share the same cultural and linguistic affinities more so than and Igbo and a Yoruba and it would be likely that if DNA tests are taken it will confirm that they are much more closely related to each other when compared to a Yoruba and Igbo.

This would be the case for the groups I mentioned Anioma, Etche, Ikwerre and the Igbo(as one SE grouping) who would most likely cluster DNA wise together than and Idoma and Igala or a Yoruba. THIS POINTS TO A MUCH MORE EARLY SEPERATION, in other words they deviated much earlier and would be closer related therefore.

samuk:

If you wouldn't agree to being called Benin, Igala or Idoma (all older names than Igbo), why then would you want Ikwerre or any other independent tribe outside the south east to accept the Igbo tag even if DNA shows blood relationship between these tribes and those that now call themselves Igbo.

No one is forcing anyone to designate as Igbo, this is not the point. The point is that regardless of the names used by these groups who are all closely related linguistically, culturally and likely blood wise, THEY BRANCH OF FORM THE SAME FOUNDER POPULATIONS.

samuk:

Artificial names such as Igbo and Yoruba have to be agreed to by every one that want to be identified as such. Anioma is a collection of formerly different tribes that made up Delta North, all these tribes don't have issues being called Anioma today even though they have different heritages, Same way the old Bendelites were proud of the name Bendel. The name Igbo should be confined to south east rather than forcing tribes outside the south east to adopt it.

I don't know what you mean here but it is evident that Aniomas though a assimilation of many ethnic groups have strong ties to the people who designate themselves as Igbo and therefore if they are mistaken for such shouldn't be an insult.

samuk:

The name Igbo seems to be problem for those outside the south east to identify with, other tribes are not keen to associate with the people that currently goes by the social political name Igbo. The question should be why?

That has a lot to do with the civil war and we all know that.

samuk:

The Igbo can drop Igbo and adopt the name Ikwerre instead of Igbo for all the tribes in the south east, I am sure the Ikwerre people wouldn't mind. If you can't adopt Ikwerre why would you want Ikwerre to adopt Igbo identity.

Igbo is a linguistic designation, there are other subsets of this within this groupings only that the different components have chosen to remain as such maybe because they did not live in the periphery with other Ethnic groups of different tongues.

Afam4eva:

This is a perspective that further buttresses the point i was making. Igbos and Ikwerres see things differently. Ikwerres see no reason why they should be called Igbo and not Igbos calling themselves Ikwerre considering that these two groups are an artificial creation. But you should also understand the perspective of some Igbos who think "Heck, we're the bigger BIA speaking group and everything that calls God 'Chukwu' should use our name".

The Ikwerre can all themselves anything they wish however the FACT STILL REMAINS that they are of the same founding populations as the igbos therefore they are of a strong affinity with this group much more than any other group in Nigeria which is why to the Igbo man they are not seen as different even though they choose to designate as such.

The languages are still very much mutually intelligeable and have not been far removed such as say Dutch versus Dueste( German) who are obviously form the same founder populations but have developed dialects that are not mutually intelligeable any more.

Afam4eva:

This is a perspective that further buttresses the point i was making. Igbos and Ikwerres see things differently. Ikwerres see no reason why they should be called Igbo and not Igbos calling themselves Ikwerre considering that these two groups are an artificial creation. But you should also understand the perspective of some Igbos who think "Heck, we're the bigger BIA speaking group and everything that calls God 'Chukwu' should use our name".

Don't be surprised if research shows that the bigger Igbo borrowed their BIA and chukwu from a smaller tribe. I am sure you must have seen the debate between the Benin and Yoruba on the origin of the title Oba. On the surface it will appear the Benin borrowed the word from the Yorubas because of its wide used by them and their much bigger population, but the fact is no Yoruba traditional ruler used the Oba title until the 1900s. Under British colonial rule the most senior Yoruba rulers such as the Ooni and Alaafin used the title Sir, so what you have is Sir Adebola Ademola, the Ooni of Ife, it was later they started using Oba.

The Benin have been using the Oba title for almost 1000 years with the European having written records of the last 600 years of it used by the Benin.

How can a tribe that have been using a word and title for almost 1000 years with almost 600 years of documented records borrowed it from a tribe that recently started using it.

Some have argued that Benin and Yorubas are closely related, should Benin now accept to be Yoruba or the Yoruba accept that they are Benin, I think this is similar to the problem Igbo is having with tribes outside the south east who doesn't want to identify as Igbo.

Some of these tribes may also be protecting their centuries old histories.

Afam4eva:

The word "Igbo" is not necessarily a new thing. What is new is using the word to refer to the people we now know as Igbo people.

Exactly

Afam4eva:

This is a perspective that further buttresses the point i was making. Igbos and Ikwerres see things differently. Ikwerres see no reason why they should be called Igbo and not Igbos calling themselves Ikwerre considering that these two groups are an artificial creation. But you should also understand the perspective of some Igbos who think "Heck, we're the bigger BIA speaking group and everything that calls God 'Chukwu' should use our name".

I’d like to pass a quick comment regarding one of the above comments on the word “Oba” as quoted below:

I am sure you must have seen the debate between the Benin and Yoruba on the origin of the title Oba. On the surface it will appear the Benin borrowed the word from the Yorubas because of its wide used by them and their much bigger population, but the fact is no Yoruba traditional ruler used the Oba title until the 1900s. Under British colonial rule the most senior Yoruba rulers such as the Ooni and Alaafin used the title Sir, so what you have is Sir Adebola Ademola, the Ooni of Ife, it was later they started using Oba.

The Benin have been using the Oba title for almost 1000 years with the European having written records of the last 600 years of it used by the Benin.

This comment is typical of disgruntled Bini Nairalanders as you may have noticed before.

A quick way of accessing the falsehood (or otherwise) of such statements in bold (which in their present form are no more than mere words put together by a random Nairalander) is to simply do the following:

Ask for the expert sources for each of the bogus claims they’ve made. For example: since they have the burden of proof having made those claims, then put the following request to them:

(a) Can you show me (or cite me) an expert evidence which supports your claim that ”no Yoruba traditional ruler used the Oba title until the 1900s”?

(b) Can you show me (or cite me) a “600” year old written record of the use of the word “Oba” for a Benin monarch — since you claimed there are such old written records?
.
.
.
You will receive one or more of the following as their reply to such requests:

(1) Silence, or (2) Cunning distractions (or shyness away) from the actual request, or (3) Excuses as to why they won’t provide the evidence, or (4) Insults.

Watch out particularly for (2) and (3). Peace!

cc: LegendHero, BabaRamota1980

Ask for the expert sources for each of the bogus claims they’ve made. For example: since they have the burden of proof having made those claims, then put the following request to them:

(a) Can you show me (or cite me) an expert evidence which supports your claim that ”no Yoruba traditional ruler used the Oba title until the 1900s”?

SALARIES OF CHIEFS IN THE SOUTHERN PROVINCES IN 1938

Paragraph 4
"The Salaries of the First and Second Class Chiefs in the Southern Provinces are as follows

"First Class
1. Alaafin of Oyo £4,200
2. Alake of Abeokuta £2,250
3. Awujale of Ijebu Ode £1, 700
4. Oba of Benin £1,650
5. Ooni of Ife £1,440

"Second Class
1. Olubadan of Ibadan £2,400
2. Owa of Ilesha £1, 450
3. Oshimawe of Ondo £350
4. Orangun of Ila £200

Source : See Page 4, Paragraph 4
GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
Federal Ministry of Information
National Archives
File No 33044 Class Mark CSO 26
Letter No. S.P. 11828/20
Secretary Office, Southern Province Nigeria
Enugu 31, January 1938.

I no longer argue with them whether they are Igbo or not, even the ones from Delta also. Even though to me they are Igbos that do not want to accept it. If they say they're Igbo fine, if they say they're not Igbo, fine.

LMAO!

First of all, your reply (despite a torturous search) fails to support your claim.

Rather than support your claim, you instead committed a logical fallacy — particularly “argumentum ex silentio”.

In other words, I can’t see it there, hence the Yorubas didn’t use it. Lol.

Turning the tables may help you see your logical fallacy even more clearly:

The traditional royal title of Benin kings, viz. “Omonoba” does not appear in that same listing you provided.

Does this then imply that this particular traditional Bini royal title was made up post 1938 — alluding to your own interesting logic? Lol.

In sum, you have simply borne testament, so far, to your failure to substantiate your bogus claim that Yoruba rulers do not use “oba” until in the 1900s.

Having demonstrated the logical fallacy of your intended argument, the following quotations show some pre-1900 statements which feature the word ”oba” for Yoruba traditional rulers:

Quoting word-for-word from Reverend Samuel Johnson’s magnum opus, the following are a few (four) examples of such use among the Yorubas:

(i) ”Several points of similarity may be noted between the ALAFIN and his Basorun. The ALAFIN is Oba (a king), he is Iba (a lord)." ~ p.71.

(ii) "From this incident, King ABIPA was nick-named Oba M'oro (the King who caught ghosts)." ~ p.166.

(iii) "And this has passed into proverb, "Oku dede ki a ko iwi wo Akesan, Oba Jayin te ori gba aso". (At the approach to Akesan of a company of chanting Eguguns, King JAYIN buried his head in a shroud.) Used of one who anticipates the inevitable." ~ p.171.

(iv) "Oaths were no more taken in the name of the gods, who were now considered too lenient and indifferent; but rather in the name of the King [i.e. King AOLE himself] who was more dreaded. "Ida Oba ni yio je mi" (may the King's sword destroy me) was the new form of oath!" ~ p.188.

Reference: Samuel Johnson, "The History of the Yorubas", Completed 1897, Published 1921.

Moreover, the specific Yoruba obas; who are mentioned or alluded to in the above old Yoruba sayings shown in the foregoing quotations from the 1897-completed work of S. Johnson; are dated by historians to have ruled in the 1500s, the 1600s, and the 1700s respectively.

Furthermore, the attachment below shows a page from an 1899-published work — driving home the very same point I’m making here.

Reference: Elisée Reclus & A. H. Keane; “Africa and Its Inhabitants", Vol. II, Published 1899, p.265.

While all the foregoing instantly debunks his claim of post-1900 Yoruba use, our Bini entertainer will yet not dare provide even a shred of evidence to substantiate even a mere 121 years old Benin use of “oba” — let alone dare substantiate his own baseless/wild claim of 600 years old written account of Benin’s use of “oba”. Isn’t God wonderful!?
.
.
.
Now to put all these into a clearer perspective for you @Afam4eva:

Each and every Yoruba kingdom actually use two distinct nouns in reference to its monarch:

(1) A common noun (“oba”) rendered in English as ”king” — lit. the “overlord”.

(2) A proper noun which generally varies from one Yoruba kingdom to another. E.g. “Ooni” for the Ife Kingdom; ”Alaafin” for the Oyo kingdom; etc.

D. M. Bondarenko makes this precise point about the two nouns when he wrote that:

““Ooni is Oba of Ife” or “the Oba of Oyo is Alaafin””

Reference: Dmitri M. Bondarenko, “Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point”, History in Africa, 2003, Vol. 30 (2003), pp. 71.
.
.
.
This same culture of using two distinct nouns (a common noun and a proper noun) for the king is also found among the Binis as well as among the Itsekiris.

Among the Binis for example, the proper noun and traditional royal title is “Omonoba”; while ”oba” is the common noun, viz. “king” — Both are in use till date in Benin culture.

Among the Itsekiris in comparison to the above, the two nouns are “Olu” (similarly rendered in English as “king” — lit. the “premier” ) and ”ogiame”. Also, both are in use till date for the king among the Itsekiris.

The king’s designation in these cultures may therefore sometimes appear in full, thus showing both nouns, as follows:

Ooni Ife, Oba Adeyeye; or Omonoba N’Edo, Oba Ewuare; or Olu Iwere, Ogiame Ikenwoli; etc. (or some variation of this standard practice).

But sometimes, the designation may also appear in part as is seen in the listing which he himself has provided.

The listing does not feature the Yoruba kings’ use of ”oba”, just as the same listing does not feature the Bini king’s use of the royal title “Omonoba“ — which generally appears in his designation in addition to the word “oba” as already shown above.

Should we then conclude — in line with his fallacious logic — that the Bini royal title “Omonoba” was a post-1938 invention? Laughable, isn’t it?
.
.
.
Anyways, I would love to see if someday he will manage to yield to the earlier request which I will make again below:

(a) Can you show me (or cite me) an expert evidence which supports your claim that “no Yoruba traditional ruler used the title until the 1900s”?

(b) Can you show me (or cite me) a “600” year old written record of the use of the word “Oba” for a Benin monarch — since you claimed there are such old written records?

Cheers!

PS: @Afam4eva, notice the subtle attempt at derailing the discussion into an issue of colonial salaries, even though it is basic knowledge that the salaries must have been proportional to the average periodic revenue generated from the respective areas.

cc: RuggedSniper, macof, LegendHero, MetaPhysical, BabaRamota1980

TAO11:
LMAO!

First of all, your reply (despite a torturous search) fails to support your claim.

Rather than support your claim, you instead committed a logical fallacy — particularly “argumentum ex silentio”.

In other words, I can’t see it there, hence the Yorubas didn’t use it. Lol.

Turning the tables may help you see your logical fallacy even more clearly:

The traditional royal title of Benin kings, viz. “Omonoba” does not appear in that same listing you provided.

Does this then imply that this particular traditional Bini royal title was made up post 1938 — alluding to your own interesting logic? Lol.

In sum, you have simply borne testament, so far, to your failure to substantiate your bogus claim that Yoruba rulers do not use “oba” until in the 1900s.

Having demonstrated the logical fallacy of your intended argument, the following quotations show some pre-1900 statements which feature the word ”oba” for Yoruba traditional rulers:

Quoting word-for-word from Reverend Samuel Johnson’s magnum opus, the following are a few (four) examples of such use among the Yorubas:

(i) ”Several points of similarity may be noted between the ALAFIN and his Basorun. The ALAFIN is Oba (a king), he is Iba (a lord)." ~ p.71.

(ii) "From this incident, King ABIPA was nick-named Oba M'oro (the King who caught ghosts)." ~ p.166.

(iii) "And this has passed into proverb, "Oku dede ki a ko iwi wo Akesan, Oba Jayin te ori gba aso". (At the approach to Akesan of a company of chanting Eguguns, King JAYIN buried his head in a shroud.) Used of one who anticipates the inevitable." ~ p.171.

(iv) "Oaths were no more taken in the name of the gods, who were now considered too lenient and indifferent; but rather in the name of the King [i.e. King AOLE himself] who was more dreaded. "Ida Oba ni yio je mi" (may the King's sword destroy me) was the new form of oath!" ~ p.188.

Reference: Samuel Johnson, "The History of the Yorubas", Completed 1897, Published 1921.

Moreover, the obas mentioned by name in the Yoruba proverbs seen in the above quotations from the 1897-completed work of S. Johnson, are dated by historians to have ruled in the 1500s, the 1600s, and the 1700s respectively.

Furthermore, the attachment below shows a page from an 1899-published work — driving home the very same point I’m making here.

Reference: Elisée Reclus & A. H. Keane; “Africa and Its Inhabitants", Vol. II, Published 1899, p.265 — A Translation of the French original published in 1873.

While all the foregoing instantly debunks his claim of post-1900 Yoruba use, our Bini entertainer will yet not dare provide even a shred of evidence to substantiate a SAY-200 years old Benin use of “oba” — let alone dare substantiate his own baseless/wild claim of 600 years old written account of Benin’s use of “oba”. Isn’t God wonderful!?
.
.
.
Now to put all these into a clearer perspective for you @Afam4eva:

Each and every Yoruba kingdom actually use two distinct nouns in reference to its monarch:

(1) A common noun (“oba”) which simply means ”king”.

(2) A proper noun which generally varies from one Yoruba kingdom to another. E.g. “Ooni” for the Ife Kingdom; ”Alaafin” for the Oyo kingdom; etc.

D. M. Bondarenko makes this precise point about the two nouns when he wrote that:

““Ooni is Oba of Ife” or “the Oba of Oyo is Alaafin””

Reference: Dmitri .M. Bondarenko, “Advent of the Second (Oba) Dynasty: Another Assessment of a Benin History Key Point”, History in Africa, 2003, Vol. 30 (2003), pp. 71.
.
.
.
This same culture of using two distinct nouns (a common noun and a proper noun) for the king is also found among the Binis as well as among the Itsekiris.

Among the Binis for example, the proper noun and traditional royal title is “Omonoba”; while ”oba” is the common noun, viz. “king” — Both are in use till date in Benin culture.

Among the Itsekiris in comparison to the above, the two nouns are “olu” and ”Ogiame”. Also, both are in use till date for the king among the Itsekiris.

The king’s designation in these cultures may therefore sometimes appear in full, thus showing both nouns, as follows:

Ooni Ife, Oba Adeyeye; or Omonoba N’Edo, Oba Ewuare; or Olu Iwere, Ogiame Ikenwoli; etc. (or some variation of this standard practice).

But sometimes, the designation may also appear in part as is seen in the listing he himself have provided.

The listing does not feature the Yoruba kings’ use of ”oba”, just as the same listing does not feature the Bini king’s use of the royal title “Omonoba“ — which generally appears in his designation in addition to the word “oba” as already shown above.

Should we then conclude — in line with his fallacious logic — that the Bini royal title “Omonoba” was a post-1938 invention? Laughable, isn’t it?
.
.
.
Anyways, I would love to see if someday he will manage to yield to the earlier request which I will make again below:

(a) Can you show me (or cite me) an expert evidence which supports your claim that “no Yoruba traditional ruler used the title until the 1900s”?

(b) Can you show me (or cite me) a “600” year old written record of the use of the word “Oba” for a Benin monarch — since you claimed there are such old written records?

Cheers!

PS: @Afam4eva, notice the subtle attempt at derailing the discussion into an issue of colonial salaries, even though the salaries must have been proportional to the average periodic revenue generated from the respective areas.

cc: RuggedSniper, macof, LegendHero, MetaPhysical, BabaRamota1980

Wonderful

Juliusmalema:




Wonderful

The one week ban u instigated ended this morning. How far na!!! . What did I miss?? How is our wife Amarabae? Has she been on her best behavior?

samuk:
Ask for the expert sources for each of the bogus claims they’ve made. For example: since they have the burden of proof having made those claims, then put the following request to them:

(a) Can you show me (or cite me) an expert evidence which supports your claim that ”no Yoruba traditional ruler used the Oba title until the 1900s”?

SALARIES OF CHIEFS IN THE SOUTHERN PROVINCES IN 1938

Paragraph 4
"The Salaries of the First and Second Class Chiefs in the Southern Provinces are as follows

"First Class
1. Alaafin of Oyo £4,200
2. Alake of Abeokuta £2,250
3. Awujale of Ijebu Ode £1, 700
4. Oba of Benin £1,650
5. Ooni of Ife £1,440

"Second Class
1. Olubadan of Ibadan £2,400
2. Owa of Ilesha £1, 450
3. Oshimawe of Ondo £350
4. Orangun of Ila £200

Source : See Page 4, Paragraph 4
GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
Federal Ministry of Information
National Archives
File No 33044 Class Mark CSO 26
Letter No. S.P. 11828/20
Secretary Office, Southern Province Nigeria
Enugu 31, January 1938.

Mehn you're vast

valirex:


Mehn you're vast

These guys can only confuse few gullible Igbo around nairaland. Rather than cite or quote from a source published before 1900s to support or debunk your claim, they will go on an academic exercise to confuse the gullible. They will call for support from their fellow Yoruba because they believe the more the merrier and when more people shout falsehoods they become truth.

With all the lengthy submission aimed to debunk my claim I didn't see any citation or quotation from a book published before 1900s confirming that any particular Yoruba traditional ruler used the Oba title before 1900s and who the Yoruba traditional ruler was.

Any scholar researching the history of Yoruba today will only write down what the Yoruba told him/her, which is different from citing an eyewitness accounts of 15th, 16th, 17th or 18th century. This is were Benin history departs from Yoruba history. Yoruba history are mostly morden day fabrications.

What the Yoruba do is to cite as evidence morden publications which are largely the opinion of the writers who were not eyewitnesses to the events they write about, they try to use these so called academic works to explain events of hundreds of years ago or earlier academic works. We have gone through all these debates before and it will be a waste of time to continue with it.

The Oba of Lagos until recently was simply known as Eleko of Eko until it was changed to Oba of Lagos.

Not everyone that parade themselves as Yoruba today were classified as Yorubas until the 1900s.

The only Oba the European met in Nigeria was the Oba of Benin.

One would have thought that considering the hundreds of Yoruba traditional rulers that now call themselves Obas, it would have been very easy to point to any written evidence before 1900s in which a specific Yoruba traditional ruler was documented with the title of Oba. Instead they are interested in concocting the root, leaf, stem and branch of the word, Oba. They want us to accept that Ooni, Alaafin, Ewi, Awujale, Baale, etc, all mean Oba. It's like the Igbo telling us that their traditional rulers were using the Obi title before the Onitsha people arrived Igbo land from Benin.

Instead of providing specifics, they will be gyrating over the place with copy and paste citations that doesn't answer the question. The truth is Oba was later added to the official titles of Yoruba traditional titles to give them more weight and prestige because of the height the title commands in ancient Benin empire.

What I presented is the official Nigeria document of the first and second class Yoruba and Benin traditional rulers and their titles as recently as 1938. Today there are hundreds of traditional rulers in Yoruba land parading themselves as Obas.

Just 150 years ago, all these people parading themselves as Obas would have been beheaded by the Benin army for impersonation. History is replete with what happened to Yoruba traditional rulers that had the bad luck of disrespecting the Benin throne in any form or shape.

Lol Again, the embedded image below is one written example of the Yorubas’ use of “oba” prior to the 1900s. I have attached this earlier.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/12698032_7c86d5a72ede45b295849b10148646f2_jpeg_jpeg1ba0fb6e39bc4533e742b4508b7e4447
Reference: Elisée Reclus & A. H. Keane; “Africa & Its Inhabitants”, Vol. II, Published 1899, p.265.

Other examples of such pre-1900 Yoruba use of “oba” are found in the writings of S. Johnson completed 1897 from which I have already culled four examples in my foregoing comment.

In other words, your boring lie that no Yoruba monarch used “oba” prior to the 1900s is already DEBUNKED and up in flames.
.
.
.
Having said that, you are yet to provide even one shred of example showing any pre-1900 Benin use of “oba” — let alone your wild and baseless specific claim of having such written evidence from “600” years ago. LMAO!
.
.
.
In sum: If you may have noticed @Afam4eva, our Benin entertainer could not provided even one shred of written evidence to demonstrate Benin’s use of “oba” even in the 1800s (which should exist actually) — let alone “600” years ago which was his actual specific baseless claim. Lol.

But despite my demolishing of his baseless claims, he somehow manages to remain deluded — pretending to be blind to the pre-1900 written evidence of “oba” for Yoruba monarchs.

Yet, he in contrast have continually failed to provide even one shred of any such pre-1900 written evidence of “oba” for Benin monarchs. Isn't this interesting?

My advice to you @Afam4eva like I have mentioned before is that you always request the evidence which should substantiate each of their many bogus claims.

Also, you may desist from engaging such deluded and disgruntled folks immediately you spot their delusions.

They will only attempt to insult your intelligence as we have seen here. But it is my pleasure to have exposed him to you.

Cheers!

My claim was very simple and specific, show me a publication before 1900s referring to a Yoruba traditional ruler using the official title of Oba. I still can't see it. I did not asked for works that was claimed to have been completed before 1900s.

Show me a pre-1900 publication that list any Yoruba traditional ruler as having the official title of Oba, who or what was the name of the traditional ruler and what town did he ruled.

This shouldn't be that difficult considering the vastness of Yoruba land and the numbers of those that now call themselves Obas.

All I ask is a pre-1900 publication listing the Ooni, Awujale, Alaafin etc as having the official title of Oba.

Today you will have something like Oba Deji Olusegun, the Ewi of XYZ or Oba Rilwan Babatunde Osuolale Aremu Akiolu, the Oba of Lagos.

Can you show me a pre-1900 publication example of the above.

Samuel Johnson, "The History of the Yorubas", was published 1921. I want to see a pre 1900 publication or don't Yoruba have published history earlier than 1900. What if I had asked for 1850 publication as evidence.

The other alleged French citation didn't refer to any specific ruler in Yoruba land as Oba. I am not interested in sweeping general claims but specifics.

@Afam4eva: Notice how our Benin entertainer fails again to provide ANY shred of evidence showing the use of “oba” for Benin monarchs in the pre-1900s. Interesting!

Notice how our Benin entertainer is on one hand failing to provide even a shred of evidence for his claim, but yet (in the same breath) is audacious enough to demand evidence — the very evidence which ironically has already been provided to him. Lol.

We can only imagine the audacity and delusions! Can’t we!? Makes one wonder if he’s gotten anything at all within his cranium.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/12698032_7c86d5a72ede45b295849b10148646f2_jpeg_jpeg1ba0fb6e39bc4533e742b4508b7e4447
Reference: Elisée Reclus & A. H. Keane; “Africa and Its Inhabitants”, Vol. II, Published 1899, p. 265.

Can someone remind me what his frustration was in relation to the above screenshot which depicts a pre-1900 use of “oba” for Yoruba monarchs?

Oh I remember. He ranted incoherently that since the discourse therein was regarding several Yoruba monarchs, then this somehow means that each Yoruba monarch was not an “oba” at the time. Wait! WHAT!!?

I think at this point it must be clear to all and sundry that delusion is a real phenomenon.
.
.
.
His words so far are beginning to sound as follows:

I have provided absolutely no proof that Benin used “oba” prior to the 1900s. Yet, I insist (although I do not have an atom of evidence) that the Yorubas took ”oba” from the Binis subsequent to 1938. And this is despite the overwhelming pre-1900 written evidence — which I have been provided with — showing the use of “oba” for Yoruba monarchs in the 1800s.
.
.
.
PS: Just to indulge the latest laughable shift in your statements, while also acquainting others with facts:

The order in which “oba” typically appears in Yoruba royal designations is as a prefix to the monarch’s personal name — usually appearing side-by-side the monarch’s unique provincial-epithet.

To borrow your own example, the royal designations generally take the form: Ewi Ado-Ekiti, Oba Deji Olusegun; etc.

Having said that, it appears you’ve suddenly become blind to the evidence I’ve been adducing all day long, one example of which is the 1897 writing which quite formally mentions a Yoruba monarch by name, and with his rightful prefix “oba”.

To cite the specific quotation again for the umpteenth time:

“And this has passed into proverb, "Oku dede ki a ko iwi wo Akesan, Oba Jayin te ori gba aso". (At the approach to Akesan of a company of chanting Eguguns, King JAYIN buried his head in a shroud.) Used of one who anticipates the inevitable."

Reference: S. Johnson, “The History of The Yorubas: From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the British Protectorate”, Completed 1897, Published 1921, p.171.

In relation to the foregoing completion date, you made a cunning face-saving remark for which I’m set to disgrace you right here.

Yes, I am aware that S. Johnson’s work was issued for public sale (aka: “published”) in the year 1921 — my reference has repeatedly shown that.

However, we also know for a fact when the same book was completed as a written work. It was completed as a written work in the year 1897. We know this as a primary historical fact.

The same book contains this fact on page viii of the “author’s preface” where he finished off with the following closure:





So, the completion date of 1897 is not some imagined information as you may be struggling hard to fool your mind into believing. It is found primarily in the same work wherein the publication date will later also appear in its primary form.

In other words, this fact is more than relevant to establishing my argument that the Yoruba monarch’s use of “oba” already existed in written form by the year 1897; that is, prior to the 1900s — thus debunking your bogus baseless delusions.


Furthermore, the Yoruba-descended Afro-Brazilian, Cândido da Fonseca Galvão (1845-1890) styled himself among the Brazilians as "Dom Obá II D'África" for being a grandson of the then Alaafin of the Great Oyo Empire.

The Brazilians also addressed him as “Omoba” i.e. the “prince” — lit. the “king’s child”. Again, this was in the 1800s.
.
.
.
In conclusion, having thoroughly debunked your bogus and baseless claim that Yoruba monarchs never used “oba” in the 1800s (whether generally or specifically, whatever difference that makes ); I ask again, for the umpteenth time, that you adduce a written evidence showing the use of “oba” by Benin monarchs in the pre-1900s — or specifically “600 years” ago to be in strict keeping with your own claim.

It is my pleasure to have exposed you to all and sundry.

Peace!

TAO11:
@Afam4eva: Notice how our Benin entertainer fails again to provide ANY shred of evidence showing any use of the word “oba” for Benin monarchs in the pre-1900s. Interesting!

Notice how our Benin entertainer is on one hand failing to provide even a shred of evidence for his own claim, but yet in the same breath audacious enough to demand evidence which ironically has already been provided to him. We can only imagine the audacity and delusions! Can’t we!?

This makes one wonder if they’ve gotten any brain at all within their cranium.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/12698032_7c86d5a72ede45b295849b10148646f2_jpeg_jpeg1ba0fb6e39bc4533e742b4508b7e4447

Can someone remind me what his frustration was again in relation to the above screenshot showing a pre-1900 use of the word “oba” for Yoruba monarchs?

Oh I remember. He ranted that since many Yoruba monarchs are being discussed therein as shown above, it therefore becomes supposedly evident that Yoruba monarchs never used “oba” in the pre-1900s.

Now everyone must have gotten a full proof that delusions are a real phenomenon.
.
.
.
His words so far are beginning to sound as follows:

I have provided absolutely no proof that Benin used the word “oba” prior to the 1900s. Yet, I maintain (although I do not have a shred of evidence) that the Yorubas took ”oba” from the Binis subsequent to 1938. And all this is despite the overwhelming evidence, which I have been provided with, of Yorubas’ use of “oba” in the pre-1900s.
.
.
.
PS: Just to indulge your recent laughable shift of your statements, while also acquainting others with facts:

The order in which the word “oba” appears in Yoruba traditional royal designation is as a prefix to the monarch’s personal name — usually usually side-by-side with the monarch’s kingdom-designation.

To use your own example: the designation in full generally takes the form: Ewi of Ado-Ekiti, Oba Deji Olusegun, et al.

Moreover, it appears you’ve suddenly become blind to the evidence I’ve been adducing all day, one example of which is an 1897 writing which specifically mentions a Yoruba monarch formally by name and with his rightful prefix, “oba”. To cite this specific quotation again:

“And this has passed into proverb, "Oku dede ki a ko iwi wo Akesan, Oba Jayin te ori gba aso". (At the approach to Akesan of a company of chanting Eguguns, King JAYIN buried his head in a shroud.) Used of one who anticipates the inevitable."

Reference: S. Johnson, “The History of The Yorubas: From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the British Protectorate”, Completed 1897, Published 1921, p.171.

You had made a cunning face-saving remark on Samuel Johnson’s work : Yes, I know it was issued for public sale (aka published) in 1921 — my reference has always shown that.

But do we know when it was completed as a written work? Yes! We know this as a historical fact. It was completed in the year 1897.

This fact is therefore relevant to my argument that the Yorubas’ use of “oba” existed in writing in the pre-1900s, thus debunking your bogus baseless claim.

Furthermore, the Yoruba-descended Afro-Brazilian, Cândido da Fonseca Galvão (1845-1890) styled himself "Dom Obá II D'África" being a grandson of the the Alaafin of Oyo Empire Again, this was in the pre-1900s — the mid-1800s to be precise.
.
.
.
In conclusion, having thoroughly debunked your baseless and bogus claim that the Yorubas never used “oba” in the pre-1900s (whether generally or specifically, whatever that means ); I ask again for the umpteenth time that you provide a written evidence, as you have claimed, of Binis’ use of the word “oba” for their monarchs in the pre-1900s — or 600 years ago to be more in line with your specific claim.

It is my pleasure to have exposed you to all and sundry. Cheers!

Peace!

Weldone and thank you for this.

gomojam:
Weldone and thank you for this.

You’re welcome sir.

Having debunked his ass, let’s wait (if not forever) for the 600 years old written evidence with which he seeks to demonstrate the use of “oba” among the Binis as he has claimed.

To think he wants to bring proof from 600 years ago when he couldn’t even bring ‘proof’ from freaking 121 years ago. Wonderful! I cant laugh abeg.

Kirigidi:
What of Isoko that are bearing the same names with Urhobo, same traditions, custom, food, marriage rites and speak a very similar language yet they said they are not Urhobo? Urhobo allowed them be.

There is even a group in Kogi State called Igodo. The bear Yoruba names and even claim to.have come from Ife like most Yoruba stocks yet they insist the are not Yoruba.

TAO11:
You’re welcome sir.

Having debunked his ass, let’s wait (if not forever) for the 600 years old written evidence with which he seeks to demonstrate the use of “oba” among the Binis as he has claimed.

To think he wants to bring proof from 600 years ago when he couldn’t even bring ‘proof’ from freaking 121 years ago. Wonderful! I cant laugh abeg.

Tao, you supposed to be Archiving the sound education you are giving to this people
He will still return when the craziness has reached maximum level again or run to another thread to repeat the same nonsense

macof:


Tao, you supposed to be Archiving the sound education you are giving to this people
He will still return when the craziness has reached maximum level again or run to another thread to repeat the same nonsense

I know right!

The most pitiable thing about these disgruntled unrepentant liars is what you’ve just mentioned.

They know themselves to be liars even from the outset without anyone refuting them.

But their simple aim is to deceive as many unsuspecting people as possible.

That’s particularly why they rush to other threads to peddle the same absurdity for which they’ve just been flogged into oblivion.

Afam4eva gregyboy


Una Don buy market from TAO11..

She go kill una with real and live evidences...



Welldone Tao, teach them