odumchi:

Avo ole ka I di?

I've told you before that if you want to discuss this Aro slavery thing with me, open a separate thread dedicated solely for that topic. You have not done so, therefore I don't see why you should be pursuing me like a housefly.

Nwanna, azakwa aga emechu onwe gi ivu.

Nwokem,I'm old enough to give you a hard knock on the head. Secondly,why would I engage you in a topic I have already read over and exhausted. There isn't anything to discuss with you,mister. Aro brought shame and filth to Igbo land and by doing so they have brought curse to the entire Igbo nation. Things will never be the same with you(your Ezes and their chieves) lots until you pay visit to Agukwu-Nri so the EZE NRI himself can perform cleansing rituals for you and wipe your iniquities away in the alter of the most ancient shrine in our part of the continent,just like he has been doing for THOUSANDS OF BLACK AMERICANS,who travel all the way from the USA and the CARIBBEAN for the life changing exercise.
Thirdly,I will advice you to curb your tongue when you talk to me and keep those your lame proverbs to yourself,so I don't get upset.

NRI PRIEST:

Nwokem,I'm old enough to give you a hard knock on the head. Secondly,why would I engage you in a topic I have already read over and exhausted. There isn't anything to discuss with you,mister. Aro brought shame and filth to Igbo land and by doing so they have brought curse to the entire Igbo nation. Things will never be the same with you(your Ezes and their chieves) lots until you pay visit to Agukwu-Nri so the EZE NRI himself can perform cleansing rituals for you and wipe your iniquities away in the alter of the most ancient shrine in our part of the continent,just like he has been doing for THOUSANDS OF BLACK AMERICANS,who travel all the way from the USA and the CARIBBEAN for the life changing exercise.
Thirdly,I will advice you to curb your tongue when you talk to me and keep those your lame proverbs to yourself,so I don't get upset.

First of all, it wasn't a proverb.
Let me translate: Nwanna, azakwa aga a emechu onwe gi ivu; My brother, don't disgrace yourself this way.

Secondly, I don't have the time to come here and while away time with you so [please] do not quote me needlessly.

I nugo ife nine m gwalu I? (I hope that dialect was easy for you to understand)

pazienza: Yea,of a truth,no igbo tribe have any good thing to say of the aros,the aros were agents of death,everyone dreaded them,they and their abam partners were bad news to all igbo tribes, little wonder the british didn't have any problem,getting the neighbouring igbo tribes like the ngwas,to gang up against aros. But Odenigbo, your aggression towards our eze is misplaced,the discussion on this thread has to do with initial contact of the british with nigerians,it is only normal that aros represents the igbo,because of their role in slave trade.

Misunderstanding breeds fear; fear breeds hatred. Most of what you said are just common misconceptions about the Aro. I would love to seriously engage you guys in a discussion about this somewhere else, if you're willing.

odumchi: Like all African nations, Nigeria is an amalgamation of various ethnicities, peoples, nations, languages and cultures. But what caused the decline of our various kingdoms, confederacies and empires? What made it possible fore a few hundred Europeans to subjugate millions of people? Here is my hypothesis.

As much as I liked your intentions in the write up you did a poor job in giving correct accounts.

The Fulani
By the 1880s, the flame of religious fervor that had stirred the Fulani to conquest was in it's dying embers. By this time, challenges had arisen within the empire. Social problems were among the most prominent. By the end of the century, 1 in 3 people were slaves, and the minority Fulani population were ruling the majority Hausa vassals. As the years passed, unrest began to spread. Problems in centralization also arose and threatened the position of the Caliph of Sokoto as the sole ruler of the Empire. The Empire, which stretched from Illorin to Kano was governed by emirs who submitted to the supreme authority of the Caliph, but soon several of these emirates, including the emir of Argungu and the emir of Kano, rebelled against the Caliph. And to add to their problems, the French, by 1890, had begun supplying other rival kingdoms with firearms. By 1892 after a year of brutal warfare with the emir of Argungu, widespread unrest had yet again weakened the empire. The French then moved in and annexed Fulani lands to the north of Sokoto, in what is now Niger Republic. The British in turn made inroads into the Fulani lands to the South and by 1903, Kano and Sokoto had been sacked and the empire had fallen under British protection.

The Ijaws
The Ijaws were among the first to meet the Europeans. Since the 1500s, the Ijaw had been trading with Portuguese explorers and the Portuguese had set up a few trading posts on the coast. In trading cities, the Ijaw traded slaves, spices, ivory, and skins for European rum, firearms and cloth. As the years passed, the Europeans gained an interest in pushing into the hinterland but however, it was finally in 1895 after years of pitting the Ijaw clans among themselves that the British Royal Niger Company that the British were able to annex Ijaw land into the South Nigerian protectorate.

Igbos
Igboland had been fortunate enough to escape British Imperialism for several years after other parts of Nigeria had been conquered. The Igbo existed in the stretch of land that lay between the Edo and the Efik. The British had made several attempts to advance into the Igbo country but they were rebuffed by the Aro confederacy and it's allies to the south and the Aniocha communities to the West. Originally, the British traded palm oil, slaves, wine, fabrics and firearms with many Igbo groups but they grew anxious to tap into the vast wealth of the hinterland and destroy the Aro Ibini Ukpabi shrine which held a monopoly on the slave trade. In the late 1890s, after several failed attempts to end the slave trade, the British used it as an excuse and formally invaded the Igbo country. In the southern areas of what is now Rivers state, they had success and captured a few trading posts. The Aros, seeing this as a threat to their prosperity launched a series of attacks aimed at halting the British advance. The British themselves responded by launching an all out assault on Igbo communities allied with the Aros which ended in 1902 after a hundreds of  British soldiers and their allies defeated tens of thousands of Aro troops. The capture of Arochukwu signaled the opening of eastern Igboland to the British, however, the Western part still lay closed.
In the West, the Igbo had been engaged in warfare with the British since 1884. The Ekumeku movement, as it came to be called, was an attempt by several Igbo groups namely, Ukwunzu, Aniocha and others to dislodge the British from the area. However the war ended on 1914 after Asaba and other key cities were captured. By the end of 1915, the road into the Igbo heartland and the east were open. However it was not until 1920, after the Aba women's riot that the Igbo were firmly under Imperial British control.

The aros were not any organised social group, they are basically slave raiders that existed in different igbo communities, they operated much like italian mafia. they only opposed the british because they see them as threats that wanted to change their way o lives.

Edo
Since the 1700s, the Edo empire was in steady decline. Many years of warefare with neighboring groups which coupled with the growing British presence forced the Oba to ban all trade with foreigners except with Palm oil. The British, seeking more and more of trade wealth of the empire launched an expedition in 1896 which ended in the sacking of Benin city, the exile of the Oba and the clearing of the path into the Midwest.

every one knows that the benin empire was not in any state of decline, it just got quiet the british were looking for an excuse to invade benin to gain access to trade with the interland and they found it after benin warriors killed a british officer.

Yoruba (Oyo)
The Oyo empire, by the 19th century, had become a shadow of it's former self. The empire no longer ran as efficiently as it used to, and the swords of the warriors no longer seemed as sharp or dangerous as they were.
furthermore, to complicate the issue, the Oyo kingdom suffered years of internal unrest and political upheaval[b] after Oba Biodun had been murdered by his son Awole.[/b] Awole proved to also be an in weak leader and he too was ousted from power in 1796 after various chain-revolts had started. A few years later, the Fulani waged war against the weak empire and captured Illorin and other Muslim Yoruba lands. After a series of weak leaders, the empire was on it's last legs by the late 1880s. Finally in 1888, Great Britain invaded and quickly annexed the Oyo empire which has fragmented into various feuding states. By 1896, the Oyo empire existed merely as a footnote in history and with it's collapse, the Yoruba heartland lay unprotected.

1. Awole never murdered his father, Abiodun died at old age as successful king.
2. The british never invaded the Oyo empire, king adeyemi only invited the british to help stop the war raging between the various warring groups in Yorubaland. the only part of Yorubaland invaded was Ijebu, which was defeated with the help of some other Yoruba groups.


So to conclude, I find it amazing thata few hundred British troops were able to subjugate empires and nations all within the same time period. What went wrong?

you never mentioned how the british conqured other nigerians; the igalas, the jukuns, the tivs. these were independent kingdoms in their own rights.

however, what went wrong was simple, the british empire had far advanced weaponry and military organisation than locals, they played one group against the other and they believed its within their rights to colonise us.

Odenigbo Aroli:

Am I missing something from this your epistle ?? You make it sound as if aro is the only igbo kingdom. You can't get aro higher that it already is! You ppl sold human for a living and there is no NOBILITY in that. Aros were savages and never contributed nothing to Igbo culture and history. You Odumchi must stop using aro as a tool for an Igbo representation,so the world doesn't think all Igbo sold human like your barbaric forefathers. Hell,you guys are hardly Igbo,to be very factual. Aro is not a model Igbo tribe. The only thing my father said about aro is that they were kidnappers and human sellers and we Nri look down on such people including Oyo and Benin kingdoms. Odumchi,you are a decendant of barbaric human sellers and as such will never represent the DIVINE,SACRED AND THE NOBLE PEOPLE of Eri and Ifikuanim! Keep deceiving yourself!

Nri isn't relevant in this discussion since they did not have military presence. Aro also bought people, which means there needed to be people that were more than willing to sell. Are you sure non of your ancestors sold slaves? Because I'm sure no Igbo can be sure their ancestors didn't.

StarFlux: The Portuguese were probably one of the less destroying nations when it comes to colonalization. The Portuguese traded fairly with Benin Kingdom as far as I know, it didn't go down until the British decided to burn it into the ground. But hey, I guess greed would've gotten to them sooner or later anyway, if it weren't for the British. But the Portuguese were in my book, less harmful if you can put it that way, than most other colonization powers. Though, I could be wrong

They were largely like the expats we have in Nigeria these days, the just came to trade, drink, f*ck and get away from their wives. That's why all these 'mixed' African communities are Portuguese speaking.

demmie1:

you never mentioned how the british conqured other nigerians; the igalas, the jukuns, the tivs. these were independent kingdoms in their own rights.

however, what went wrong was simple, the british empire had far advanced weaponry and military organisation than locals, they played one group against the other and they believed its within their rights to colonise us.

The British didn't have more advanced military organisation than the locals.

Nothing went wrong. Just natural progression.
How many so called "kingdoms" or 'Empires" can you count on your fingers today?
that style of politics has all been replaced by nationalism all over the world.

even empires and so called kingdoms of those days were multi-ethnic. so when people talk about nigeria being impossible because it's multi-ethnic. they are talking out of their azz. ex.yoruba kindgom was composed of groups that spoke different tongues at some point and what held them together is the fact that they had to pay tribute to the same king.

let us see the positives jare and leave the negativity behind. even so called british empire no longer exist and neither is it a world power anymore.
things are always changing for better or for worse.

what makes a people successful is their ability to adapt well to changes.

United Kingdom
Kingdom of Norway
Kingdom of Bahrain
Kingdom of Denmark
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Kingdom of Swaziland
Kingdom of Tonga
Kingdom of the Netherlands
Kingdom of Sweden
United Arab Emirates
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
And so on...

Other:
Japan (Emperor Akihito)
Brunei (Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah)
Commonwealth: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, and so on... (Queen Elizabeth II)

'Multi-ethnic' would mean that every one of those ethnicities had an equal share of the state, including cultural influence.

@ topic

When you have a section of your local populace who are enslaved, held captive or are otherwise in bondage, then of course things will fall apart faster.

ezeagu: United Kingdom
Kingdom of Norway
Kingdom of Bahrain
Kingdom of Denmark
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Kingdom of Swaziland
Kingdom of Tonga
Kingdom of the Netherlands
Kingdom of Sweden
United Arab Emirates
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
And so on...

Other:
Japan (Emperor Akihito)
Brunei (Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah)
Commonwealth: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, and so on... (Queen Elizabeth II)

you must be out of your mind.
What about Ooni of Ife
Oba of Benin
Igwe of iboland
etc etc

these are all CEREMONIAL posts. They have absolutely no power over the direction of the country. When was the last time Queen Elizabeth had anything to do with British foreign and economic policy besides just providing fodder for celebrity tabloids. the only thing that makes "royalty" relevant today is the fairy tale idea of princes and princess ex weddings. kate middletown etc. they are just like entertainers rather than rulers.
they are no longer relevant in today's global political reality!!

you are only deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
when the so called "royalty" is being forced to pay rent by the president or prime minister. you know something is up. worst of all is when it's featured in a tabloid.ROTFL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1077382/How-Princess-Pushy-pay-120-000-year-rent-Kensington-Palace-apartment.html

Who ever still calls Sweden, Denmark, Japan etc empires and kingdoms are just fools who need to be shipped back to the iceage.

ezeagu: 'Multi-ethnic' would mean that every one of those ethnicities had an equal share of the state, including cultural influence.

WRONG there is NO such thing as each ethnicities having equal share of the state.
that does not exist in reality. only fantasy.

India is a multi-ethnic nation. because it has a plethora of ethnicities within it's borders. but usually only the most poweful ethnic groups will get to rule it most of the time.
USA is also a multi-ethnic country. I'm sure you live in the USA so I won't say further than that.
what's left is for the ethnic groups to vie for power (if they are still stuck with tribalistic mindframes). if you sit back relax waiting for your share to come to you then you will siddon forever. while you are sitting idly, you can occupy yourselves with stupid stories of how you were "great kingdoms" in the past tales of the weak idlers who don't want to move forward with reality.

if you have problems with these definitions of "multi-ethnic", go and petition dictionaries and encyclopedias to include your crazy ideas in their books.
A multiethnic society is one with members belonging to more than one ethnic group, in contrast to societies which are ethnically homogeneous.

the key word here is "members" not "rulers"
and by that definition, all empires and kingdoms of the past (and *chuckle* present) have been multi-ethnic. in fact, the whole point of becoming an empire is to CONQUER other groups and have them absorbed into yours.
in that sense, nations are actually fairer politically since each member has a vote. but of course numbers matter.

How did this discussion turn to preaching for forced nigerian unity? For those of you mentioning India, india once covered pakistan and banglandesh,but it is no longer the same today. The majority muslim pakistanis got their own country, the majority hindi india got theirs,and banglandesh got theirs too. You can't have three majority groups with different life ideologies in the same country,especally when such a unity is built on a forced unity. The ideal condition is one dominant group,with a clear cut ideology,which other minorities rally around ,that is how a stable country is structured, in India they have a dominant majority Hindi culture,in USA it's anglo-saxon,Ghana is doing well because of this same reason.

pazienza: How did this discussion turn to preaching for forced nigerian unity? For those of you mentioning India, india once covered pakistan and banglandesh,but it is no longer the same today. The majority muslim pakistanis got their own country, the majority hindi india got theirs,and banglandesh got theirs too. You can't have three majority groups with different life ideologies in the same country,especally when such a unity is built on a forced unity. The ideal condition is one dominant group,with a clear cut ideology,which other minorities rally around ,that is how a stable country is structured, in India they have a dominant majority Hindi culture,in USA it's anglo-saxon,Ghana is doing well because of this same reason.

so, how do you explain American Civil War of Secession?
or how do you explain the fact that Pakistanis are now killing each other over stupid things like Sunni vs Shiite islam? so should they divide further into two new countries?when will the cycle end?
muslims were never a majority group in india! they were always a minority group compared to the hindus. you can be a minority group and still gain independence for your own country. it doesn't make it a wise decision but it happens.
or how do you explain the fact that yorubas and hausas are not interested in secession like the igbos are?
how do you explain the fact that minority Sikhs NOT majority Hindus wield a disproportionate amount of power in Indian politics and economy?
how do you explain the fact that simple conflicts resort to war in countries like congo (single ethnic majority and religion!) yet in a country like USA, things are relatively stable?
Ghana has ethnic conflicts too. do your research. besides, it has a diversified economy for now. only time will tell what the "oil curse" will do to it.
Only a fool will not realize that the nigerian civil war is all about OIL. ideology or ethnic "differences" are just facades for the real purpose of the war. millions of foolish people were just used as tools for a few select greedy ambitious men.

c.fours:



you must be out of your mind.
What about Ooni of Ife
Oba of Benin
Igwe of iboland
etc etc

these are all CEREMONIAL posts. They have absolutely no power over the direction of the country. When was the last time Queen Elizabeth had anything to do with British foreign and economic policy besides just providing fodder for celebrity tabloids. the only thing that makes "royalty" relevant today is the fairy tale idea of princes and princess ex weddings. kate middletown etc. they are just like entertainers rather than rulers.
they are no longer relevant in today's global political reality!!

you are only deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
when the so called "royalty" is being forced to pay rent by the president or prime minister. you know something is up. worst of all is when it's featured in a tabloid.ROTFL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1077382/How-Princess-Pushy-pay-120-000-year-rent-Kensington-Palace-apartment.html

Who ever still calls Sweden, Denmark, Japan etc empires and kingdoms are just fools who need to be shipped back to the iceage.

Funny, cause Saudi Arabia, Brunei, and a few others are absolute monarchies, meaning the monarch is the only ruler/leader. Queen Elizabeth II is actually the Head of State of the United Kingdom, meaning she can declare war on another country without anyones consesnt (well, you know what I mean).

"The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms. The elder daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, she was born in 1926 and became Queen at the age of 25, and has reigned through more than five decades of enormous social change and development. The Queen is married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and has four children and eight grandchildren.

In this section packed full of images and videos, you can find out more about Her Majesty's early life and reign, public life, marriage and family and personal interests."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/hmthequeen/hmthequeen.aspx

Apart from all this Elizabeth II and probably all those monarch are looked after by Tax payers money. The United Kingdom isn't called "United Kingdom" for no reason. All those kingdoms I listed are the official long name of the state, meaning they recognise themselves as a kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

c.fours:


WRONG there is NO such thing as each ethnicities having equal share of the state.
that does not exist in reality. only fantasy.

India is a multi-ethnic nation. because it has a plethora of ethnicities within it's borders. but usually only the most poweful ethnic groups will get to rule it most of the time.
USA is also a multi-ethnic country. I'm sure you live in the USA so I won't say further than that.
what's left is for the ethnic groups to vie for power (if they are still stuck with tribalistic mindframes). if you sit back relax waiting for your share to come to you then you will siddon forever. while you are sitting idly, you can occupy yourselves with stupid stories of how you were "great kingdoms" in the past tales of the weak idlers who don't want to move forward with reality.

if you have problems with these definitions of "multi-ethnic", go and petition dictionaries and encyclopedias to include your crazy ideas in their books.
A multiethnic society is one with members belonging to more than one ethnic group, in contrast to societies which are ethnically homogeneous.

the key word here is "members" not "rulers"
and by that definition, all empires and kingdoms of the past (and *chuckle* present) have been multi-ethnic. in fact, the whole point of becoming an empire is to CONQUER other groups and have them absorbed into yours.
in that sense, nations are actually fairer politically since each member has a vote. but of course numbers matter.

Yeah, but in the context of politics and ethnocentrism (which you were comparing Nigeria and empires of past with), the empires would have to have equal stake, or potential equal stake in the state. But that isn't apparent in older kingdoms like Benin where it was only ethnic Bini that ruled. So therefore, no, empires of past were not-multiethnic although the society may have been.

self determination is human nature,no one should be forced to be in the same country with people they don't want. On,american war was ideological war,once it was over,they got over it,it had no tribal undertones,non of the actors are indigenous to america. On the indian issue,the sikhs are a progressive group,their region have the highest GDP in india,yea,the current prime minister is a sikh,and for a small group,they control upto 20percent of the indian army,but make no mistake about it,the hindi are still the lords of india,they have the population. About congo,i dont know where you got the idea that congo has only one ethnic group,to the best of my knowledge ,they have four major ethnic groups,with the kongo ethnic group making up about 48percent of the population.

during the 1966 counter coup by the north,and the riot of northern citizens that resulted to the massacre of thousands of easterners,the shout by the north was 'araba', the wanted out of nigeria,they felt they don't belong together with the east,we in the east felt so too, the massacre was supposed to be their parting gift to us. But then,the british came in,and the north became their mercenaries to help them secure the oil in the east,and the north mantra changed to: "one nigeria". So, you are right,to the yorubas and the north,one nigeria must be preserved because of oil,but you are wrong on igbos,for us,nigeria must die,not because of oil,but because we share different different ideology with you lots.

ezeagu:

Queen Elizabeth II is actually the Head of State of the United Kingdom, meaning she can declare war on another country without anyones consesnt (well, you know what I mean).

"The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms. The elder daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, she was born in 1926 and became Queen at the age of 25, and has reigned through more than five decades of enormous social change and development. The Queen is married to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and has four children and eight grandchildren.

In this section packed full of images and videos, you can find out more about Her Majesty's early life and reign, public life, marriage and family and personal interests."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/hmthequeen/hmthequeen.aspx

Apart from all this Elizabeth II and probably all those monarch are looked after by Tax payers money. The United Kingdom isn't called "United Kingdom" for no reason. All those kingdoms I listed are the official long name of the state, meaning they recognise themselves as a kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

don't make me laugh in gangnam style abeg
I love how you are talking more about the monarchy's past and history rather than about its present relevance to UK political life.
it's very obvious that the monarchy is in decline and only still exists in UK to keep tourism going. it has no other function. it's just a cultural symbol nothing else. just like things like Ooni of ife or oba of benin in nigeria. these posts are more ceremonial than anything. their real power is largely gone and its not coming back!

ezeagu:

Yeah, but in the context of politics and ethnocentrism (which you were comparing Nigeria and empires of past with), the empires would have to have equal stake, or potential equal stake in the state. But that isn't apparent in older kingdoms like Benin where it was only ethnic Bini that ruled. So therefore, no, empires of past were not-multiethnic although the society may have been.

I don't know where your so called "equal stake" idea is coming from. do you even know what the definition of an empire or kingdom is? "equal stake" is a foreign concept to the inherent idea and meaning of what an empire is. which is all about conquests and expansion. what counts as modern day "empires" are really just relics and remnants of what used to exist in the past. their relevance is largely gone. in fact,the decline of the british empire is what led to the wave of independence of many of its dependent states in the mid 20th century. The last real modern empire to exist was the USSR and it fell in 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Empire
and there is NO such thing as "ethnic" equal stake even in modern nation states. that's all idealism for the dreamy idlers. I wish you would give a few examples of the kind of countries or empires with "equal stake" that you are talking about. why do you think people fight wars/ or form allies. it's all about getting as much power as possible for oneself! and at the end of the day, it's all about winners and losers. we are talking about politics here not church sermon.

pazienza: self determination is human nature,no one should be forced to be in the same country with people they don't want. On,american war was ideological war,once it was over,they got over it,it had no tribal undertones,non of the actors are indigenous to america. On the indian issue,the sikhs are a progressive group,their region have the highest GDP in india,yea,the current prime minister is a sikh,and for a small group,they control upto 20percent of the indian army,but make no mistake about it,the hindi are still the lords of india,they have the population.

do you live in the US? well, I do. the war was fought almost 200 yrs ago and if you go to the south today, they are still waving their "confederate flags" and chanting "the south will rise again" just the same way biafrans are still dreamy about so called biafra. hahaha the southerners are the butt of jokes for us american northerners. they lost the war and up to this day, they're still bitter about it. after almost 200 yrs!!
sometimes, ego triumphs over logic
but the south are not interested in fighting a civil war anymore even though they still have a separate ideology (ex. southerners are predominantly republican vs democrats up north). so ideology is not enough to "self determine"

Look at the war of lebanon. their situation was similar to india. a small christian minority controlled a large share of the political and economic power while majority of the country was muslim. this led to a brutal civil war!! why didn't India degenerate into the same?
the way each country handles and manages its problems determines the outcome IMO

and you also need to define what you mean by ideology because there are people in every nation with different ideology yet they don't fight wars or want to secceed. yet in some other countries, they do. ex. atheists make up a substantial population in USA yet you don't see christian and atheists at war. and who knows, 100 yrs from now they might be. it all depends on a few people at the top who manipulate previously innocuous differences between people to gain support for their cause. all of a sudden, the differences that didn't use to be a big deal become something people start laying their lives for

the american civil war was in reality a war over economic power. the industrial revolution was taking over the traditional manual agricultural economy that the south dominated. the south had plenty of slaves for manual agricultural labor yet industrialism was taking hold with its iron, steel and engines and threatening the southern economy. these are people who are similar in every way same language, same heritage same everything. yet all of a sudden they are at war. of course humans will always try to rationalize their motives and claim they were all about ideology but we all know the real reason behind the war was competition for power. it is no surprise that industrialism sped up after the civil war. the northerners had won!!!
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/186089

kinda like how the war in Iraq was a war for "freedom and democracy" yet every person with a brain knows it's really just a war over OIL and resources. freedom and democracy are just the "feel good" reasons that people can be proud to say they are fighting for. ideology is also a way for the few leaders at the top to garner support from the dumb mass for a cause that doesn't benefit them in any way. you started seeing americans going to iraq to die foolishly for "freedom"

imagine if wars were fought just because of ideology there will be a gazzilion wars being fought on the planet today. people inherently have different believes and ideas. it's what makes us human. it is when these differences are either being taken advantage of by the elite or the differences lead to a chance for economic or political gain that you see people start fighting or claiming "self determination."

About congo,i dont know where you got the idea that congo has only one ethnic group,to the best of my knowledge ,they have four major ethnic groups,with the kongo ethnic group making up about 48percent of the population.

re-read my post again. it says "one single MAJORITY ethnic group" if the next biggest ethnic group makes up only 15% while the biggest makes up 50%. which is the majority?

pazienza: during the 1966 counter coup by the north,and the riot of northern citizens that resulted to the massacre of thousands of easterners,the shout by the north was 'araba', the wanted out of nigeria,they felt they don't belong together with the east,we in the east felt so too, the massacre was supposed to be their parting gift to us. But then,the british came in,and the north became their mercenaries to help them secure the oil in the east,and the north mantra changed to: "one nigeria". So, you are right,to the yorubas and the north,one nigeria must be preserved because of oil,but you are wrong on igbos,for us,nigeria must die,not because of oil,but because we share different different ideology with you lots.

again you are proving my point!!
of course it makes you feel civilized to believe that you are fighting for "ideology"
whatever makes you sleep well at night
yet i wonder why biafra wanted to take all of the oil rich south south regions with it.
and also why Ojukwu immediately began making plans to work with the french oil company, Elf. this is while the war was still going on!! he didn't even wait for biafra to materialize before he started looking for ways to make oil money.
admit it that the folks were just pawns.
but ego and pride is too great even for LOGIC.

this confederate lady is your friend. hahaha 200 yrs later
[img]http://3.bp..com/-G9dBZigNGu0/Tm2RjnrP9VI/AAAAAAAAALk/L5EmkXGNWQk/s1600/confederate+flag+tea+party.JPG[/img]

You are still repeating the same nigerian propaganda. Unlike the western region where the yorubas lorded it over the midwesterners,and had no regard for the Oba,the eastern minorities were fully represented in the east,the decision to secede was not taken by Ojukwu,it was put under a democratic vote,where the members of eastern consultative assembly consisting of eastern minorities and igbos voted for secession,nobody was dragging anybody,considering that during this era the two major oil fields in the east,were the oloibiri( ijaw) and owaza(igbo) fields,add this to the fact that ogba,ikwerre,ndoni,and to some extent ekpeye,were still under the igbo union,one begins to see how ridiculous that nigerian propaganda was.

"In an authoritative and detailed memorandium on the background,cause and consequences of the nigerian civil war isssued in novermber 1968 by more than sixty british subjects including sir robert stapledon,the last british governor of the eastern region(1959-60),it was concluded that of the 37 percent of the population which the minority group represented in biafra,only 10percent will favour continued association with the federal government"

The federal govt was aware of the above report,so when they accused biafra of dragging the minorities by force,ojukwu requested that a plebiscite be conducted in the minority area,but the federal govt rejected the plebicite proposal,obviously because it implied the recognition of biafra,and substitution of democratic vote for force of arms. Had the plebicite been conducted,a cease fire would have had to be declared, neutral observers would have been on scene,the secession would have been revealed as people's movement.-KWJ( january 26,1968,international affairs).

" further proof of the fact that biafra was an eastern region affair,and not an igbo affair like the yoruba/north would have the world believe: "even with the fall of Enugu,there were no widespread uprising by the minorities against General Ojukwu,although he would hardly have sufficient troops to fight the war and hold down five million people" -KWJ( january 26,1968,international affairs).

One nigerian propaganda down,more to go.

c.fours:


don't make me laugh in gangnam style abeg
I love how you are talking more about the monarchy's past and history rather than about its present relevance to UK political life.
it's very obvious that the monarchy is in decline and only still exists in UK to keep tourism going. it has no other function. it's just a cultural symbol nothing else. just like things like Ooni of ife or oba of benin in nigeria. these posts are more ceremonial than anything. their real power is largely gone and its not coming back!

You failed this argument. It's clear that you are either avoiding this fact, or that you do not know what a head of state or absolute monarchy is.

c.fours:


I don't know where your so called "equal stake" idea is coming from. do you even know what the definition of an empire or kingdom is? "equal stake" is a foreign concept to the inherent idea and meaning of what an empire is. which is all about conquests and expansion. what counts as modern day "empires" are really just relics and remnants of what used to exist in the past. their relevance is largely gone. in fact,the decline of the british empire is what led to the wave of independence of many of its dependent states in the mid 20th century. The last real modern empire to exist was the USSR and it fell in 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Empire
and there is NO such thing as "ethnic" equal stake even in modern nation states. that's all idealism for the dreamy idlers. I wish you would give a few examples of the kind of countries or empires with "equal stake" that you are talking about. why do you think people fight wars/ or form allies. it's all about getting as much power as possible for oneself! and at the end of the day, it's all about winners and losers. we are talking about politics here not church sermon.

You're confusing yourself. You were trying to equate Nigeria's diversity with the ethnic diversity of fallen empires like Benin when in fact they cannot be compared. You were trying to make it seem like states like Nigeria have been present since before European contact which is nonsense because there was never any colonising power that created completely new multi-ethnic states that became independent before European arrival. By law everybody in Nigeria has equal stake, but in Benin and every other empire every non-member of the ruling ethnic group, in this case non-Bini, did not. What you are saying is that in practice, not by law, there is a ruling class or there is bias to a particular group, whether racial or otherwise, in all these countries presently which isn't really countering any arguments I've made.

@ezeagu,
If you believe that britain is under an "absolute monarchy" I won't argue with you on that one. hahaha

.

By law everybody in Nigeria has equal stake, but in Benin and every other empire every non-member of the ruling ethnic group, in this case non-Bini, did not. What you are saying is that in practice, not by law, there is a ruling class or there is bias to a particular group, whether racial or otherwise, in all these countries presently which isn't really countering any arguments I've made.

I'm sorry but Nigeria ain't a communist country. there is no clause in our constitution that states that tribe "equality" (whatever that means) must be enforced by law. Even majority of the so called communist countries turned out to be scams of the highest order and much worse, dictatorial and brutal than the alternatives. all they did was use human lives as tools.

besides as far as i'm concerned, our current president is Goodluck Ebele Azikwe Jonathan. I'm satisfied with my president and i'm yoruba. You keep repeating the phrase "ruling ethnic group" and that makes no sense to me. of course if you have given up hope in nigeria and not interested in contributing to its civil life then you can't complain about not being represented. You chose to be a non- participant. In fact, you choose to be a enemy of progress. Even ojukwu came back from exile and couldn't carry simple votes in his town talkless of whole SE region! of course after he dies they all pretend to revere him. can i say irony?

No, we won't mind if you leave nigeria. seriously. just pack your load and leave the country or change nationalities. the country will stay intact n we won't miss you.

the biggest irony of all is that igbos actually living in SE are just as ok as other tribes. It is mostly the implants i.e igbos squatting on yoruba or hausa land that are most bitter and angry about nigeria. Even Ojukwu himself never really lived in his region. was born and raised outside of it. Maybe that is the problem. insecurity issues? When you have kids, maybe you can try to raise them in their native land so they don't grow up to be as bitter? because of course when you spend you entire life living on another man's land, you will grow up to have an insecure, marginalized mentality. If you think your tribe is marginalized, then maybe it seems that way because you are living in another tribe's region? go to a public secondary school in ogun or oyo state and tons of 12-13 yr old ibo kids there who are going to grow up marred and insecure. and lagos is NOT igboland (yea despite many igbo men's fantasies). I probably would be bitter too if I grew up in Kano or onitsha.I would probably feel marginalized too(rotfl) Thank God i'm yoruba through and through. born and bred. proud yoruba and nigerian. most hausas also live in the north and are not as migratory.
as a young child,I actually thought igbos, hausas etc were foreigners from ghana. honest truth. I knew they didn't belong the the area. their names were different etc. of course the only hausas I met were adults who were traders or gatemen but the igbos were children they actually were born and grew up in yorubaland. and when you are a child, your vicinity is your entire world. so maybe this is what influence igbo mentality to feel like foreigners because they grew up not "belonging" from living among other tribes? I'm sure if I had grown up in a village in Enugu or Maiduguri, the kids will see me as "foreign" and I will grow up with that mentality of "marginalization" as well due to not fitting in.

try raising your kids in their native land. it will do much good for your sense of self, worth and pride. those qualities shouldcome from thee inside and not be defined by political borders. you don't need secession to feel "self determination" LOL your pride in your heritage should come from the inside and shouldn't be defined by some unknown mythological borders from kingdoms past. rotfl why the attempt to recreate the past when you shld be moving forward.

https://www.nairaland.com/1172862/permanent-post-biafra-trauma-blackmail

c.fours:
@ezeagu,
If you believe that britain is under an "absolute monarchy" I won't argue with you on that one. hahaha

Doesn't make sense since you know what I'm referring to, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Brunei, and so on.

c.fours:
I'm sorry but Nigeria ain't a communist country. there is no clause in our constitution that states that tribe "equality" (whatever that means) must be enforced by law. Even majority of the so called communist countries turned out to be scams of the highest order and much worse, dictatorial and brutal than the alternatives. all they did was use human lives as tools.

besides as far as i'm concerned, our current president is Goodluck Ebele Azikwe Jonathan. I'm satisfied with my president and i'm yoruba. You keep repeating the phrase "ruling ethnic group" and that makes no sense to me. of course if you have given up hope in nigeria and not interested in contributing to its civil life then you can't complain about not being represented. You chose to be a non- participant. In fact, you choose to be a enemy of progress. Even ojukwu came back from exile and couldn't carry simple votes in his town talkless of whole SE region! of course after he dies they all pretend to revere him. can i say irony?

No, we won't mind if you leave nigeria. seriously. just pack your load and leave the country or change nationalities. the country will stay intact n we won't miss you.

It's very obvious that Nigeria allows any of its citizens to attain any position in the country, meaning that the law gives everybody that right and nobody can stop them. "Tribe equality" was something you made up in your post, not something found in mine. It seems that you can't understand simple things like when I referred to ruling ethnic groups of empires past. Then you started talking about irrelevant things that have nothing to do with anything as if this was what was being discussed. Look, there are still absolute monarchies around the world, and there are just as many constitutional monarchies. You were wrong when you said kingdoms are a thing of the past. End of.

odumchi: Like all African nations, Nigeria is an amalgamation of various ethnicities, peoples, nations, languages and cultures. But what caused the decline of our various kingdoms, confederacies and empires? What made it possible fore a few hundred Europeans to subjugate millions of people? Here is my hypothesis.

The Fulani
By the 1880s, the flame of religious fervor that had stirred the Fulani to conquest was in it's dying embers. By this time, challenges had arisen within the empire. Social problems were among the most prominent. By the end of the century, 1 in 3 people were slaves, and the minority Fulani population were ruling the majority Hausa vassals. As the years passed, unrest began to spread. Problems in centralization also arose and threatened the position of the Caliph of Sokoto as the sole ruler of the Empire. The Empire, which stretched from Illorin to Kano was governed by emirs who submitted to the supreme authority of the Caliph, but soon several of these emirates, including the emir of Argungu and the emir of Kano, rebelled against the Caliph. And to add to their problems, the French, by 1890, had begun supplying other rival kingdoms with firearms. By 1892 after a year of brutal warfare with the emir of Argungu, widespread unrest had yet again weakened the empire. The French then moved in and annexed Fulani lands to the north of Sokoto, in what is now Niger Republic. The British in turn made inroads into the Fulani lands to the South and by 1903, Kano and Sokoto had been sacked and the empire had fallen under British protection.

The Ijaws
The Ijaws were among the first to meet the Europeans. Since the 1500s, the Ijaw had been trading with Portuguese explorers and the Portuguese had set up a few trading posts on the coast. In trading cities, the Ijaw traded slaves, spices, ivory, and skins for European rum, firearms and cloth. As the years passed, the Europeans gained an interest in pushing into the hinterland but however, it was finally in 1895 after years of pitting the Ijaw clans among themselves that the British Royal Niger Company that the British were able to annex Ijaw land into the South Nigerian protectorate.

Igbos
Igboland had been fortunate enough to escape British Imperialism for several years after other parts of Nigeria had been conquered. The Igbo existed in the stretch of land that lay between the Edo and the Efik. The British had made several attempts to advance into the Igbo country but they were rebuffed by the Aro confederacy and it's allies to the south and the Aniocha communities to the West. Originally, the British traded palm oil, slaves, wine, fabrics and firearms with many Igbo groups but they grew anxious to tap into the vast wealth of the hinterland and destroy the Aro Ibini Ukpabi shrine which held a monopoly on the slave trade. In the late 1890s, after several failed attempts to end the slave trade, the British used it as an excuse and formally invaded the Igbo country. In the southern areas of what is now Rivers state, they had success and captured a few trading posts. The Aros, seeing this as a threat to their prosperity launched a series of attacks aimed at halting the British advance. The British themselves responded by launching an all out assault on Igbo communities allied with the Aros which ended in 1902 after a hundreds of  British soldiers and their allies defeated tens of thousands of Aro troops. The capture of Arochukwu signaled the opening of eastern Igboland to the British, however, the Western part still lay closed.
In the West, the Igbo had been engaged in warfare with the British since 1884. The Ekumeku movement, as it came to be called, was an attempt by several Igbo groups namely, Ukwunzu, Aniocha and others to dislodge the British from the area. However the war ended on 1914 after Asaba and other key cities were captured. By the end of 1915, the road into the Igbo heartland and the east were open. However it was not until 1920, after the Aba women's riot that the Igbo were firmly under Imperial British control.

Edo
Since the 1700s, the Edo empire was in steady decline. Many years of warefare with neighboring groups which coupled with the growing British presence forced the Oba to ban all trade with foreigners except with Palm oil. The British, seeking more and more of trade wealth of the empire launched an expedition in 1896 which ended in the sacking of Benin city, the exile of the Oba and the clearing of the path into the Midwest.

Yoruba (Oyo)
The Oyo empire, by the 19th century, had become a shadow of it's former self. The empire no longer ran as efficiently as it used to, and the swords of the warriors no longer seemed as sharp or dangerous as they were.
furthermore, to complicate the issue, the Oyo kingdom suffered years of internal unrest and political upheaval after Oba Biodun had been murdered by his son Awole. Awole proved to also be an in weak leader and he too was ousted from power in 1796 after various chain-revolts had started. A few years later, the Fulani waged war against the weak empire and captured Illorin and other Muslim Yoruba lands. After a series of weak leaders, the empire was on it's last legs by the late 1880s. Finally in 1888, Great Britain invaded and quickly annexed the Oyo empire which has fragmented into various feuding states. By 1896, the Oyo empire existed merely as a footnote in history and with it's collapse, the Yoruba heartland lay unprotected.


So to conclude, I find it amazing thata few hundred British troops were able to subjugate empires and nations all within the same time period. What went wrong?

Ijo were not the first to trade with Europeans. During the 15th century, Portuguese referred to certain people at bank of Rivers that dotted the estuary of Rivers Benue-Niger, Imo, Urashi and Utamiri as “Jos”. Today, the most people referred as Ijo are the offspring from the union between the European potters and indigenous people along coast of Bight of Biafra (Bonny). Majority of the so-called Ijo came with the Europeans and as a matter of fact, few are Indians and Pilipino ancestry.