Prior to colonization, a pan-ibo tribe was non-existent. The British administrators and missioners assisted ibo people to self-discover who they are. Unlike Yorubas and Hausas, the ibos had no divinely ordained hereditary power, a rallying point to all regardless of status in life and society. This gap necessitated creating artificial heads to rule over the ibos. . . . thus the creation of warrant officer post to act as the head of native authority. While Yorubas derived power from the divinely ordained traditional Oba or Ooni and the Hausas derived power from a divinely ordained Sultan or Sarki. . . . . . .the ibos needed some sort of similar but British derived power. This was the beginning of Eze in iboland. The British therefore sidestepped a more traditional and ancient civilization of the Efik/Ibibio/Annang people who, like the Yorubas and the Hausas also have a divinely ordained King, the Obong, ruling over them.

Geographically, the ibos are only present as a cultural group in Nigeria, and no where else. Whereas, the Efik/Ibibio/Annang people are spread across Nigeria into Cameroons. Similarly, Yorubas are spread into other West African States, as are the Hausas. In the making of a majority in the East, or anywhere else in Nigeria, the ibos failed to assert and independently establish itself as a majority power or Kingdom in Eastern Nigeria or in West Africa. The Kalabari and the Efik had remained historically a formidable power in the East, they controlled the coastal power and the slave trade which primarily were cargoes of ibos captured in the hinterlands and sold to Europeans.

In all the ingredients necessary to construct regional majorities, the Efik/Ibibio therefore had the cause and effect that the Yorubas and the Hausas had but which the Ibos lacked. So why did Britain prefer Ibo to Efik in the choice of majority for East? One reason only - missionary work! That can be further discussed some other time. . . . for now see following link for additional info on topic.

[url]http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~dvdb/CH_7.pdf[/url]

Negro_ntns, how about the famed Nri kingdom? How do you account for their place in this historical scenario?

If Nri was as powerful as re-written and revised history has claimed for it, then indeed Iboland would be far bigger than what it is today. Nri kingdom was just a small enclaves of people buried in the jungle terrorizing clans within its small radius of reach. We should go back to something Chinua Achebe said a while back. . . . Ibo is not a tribe, it is a nation! He was pf course saying this after it became clear to him that pre-colonial African States were referenced as Nations or Kingdoms or Empires. In his attempt to elevate his own tribe to that enviable position he began coaching the media on how to label ibo people.

Nri was a collection of clans. The kingdom attachment was a recent addition to elevate it to a position it never occupied. Kingdoms expand and subdue their rival kingdoms to paying tributes. Which of its neighboring people or civilizations did Nri subdue to earn the "kingdom" title? The land has never expanded beyond those few enclaves and clans that were aboriginal to the land. To make matters worse. . . Nri was defeated by Aro. Nri is said to be a settler and Aro was indigenous. In the entire African continent, beside this Nri, I have not come across a settler prince (as he is called) getting beaten and subdued by the indigeneous people. This was a first!

I can see Dudu_Negro knows nothing about Igboland and its diversity. Do not discuss things you know nothing about. As someone who is from Arochukwu, in which my people have always had an "Eze" before the arrival of Europeans, you analysis is wrong. The same goes for the people of Onitsha who had their own form of monarchy that controlled the city-state. Yes, some Igbo clans did not have one supreme authority figure, but that just shows that many Igbo clans were more advanced than the neighboring groups, because they practice TRUE DEMOCRACY.

That is why democracy can thrive in Igboland, where it cannot in other regions such as the North or in Yorubeland, in which you all need a single leader to control you all even if it is through bloodline. That is something that goes against Igbo culture, where every man is equal to the next.

Describe what you call democracy in iboland, lets see. . . .

^^^

If you want to know, then use Google.

EzeUche:

^^^If you want to know, then use Google.

Thank you.

Anyone who even makes a serious attempt to engage Negro, on this subject-matter, is simply being foolish. So simply let this topic end here.

Laugh wan carry me fall out of the earth
op if you really that much interested or obessed about igbo, pls pick up your book and read!!

EzeUche:

I can see Dudu_Negro knows nothing about Igboland and its diversity. Do not discuss things you know nothing about. As someone who is from Arochukwu, in which my people have always had an "Eze" before the arrival of Europeans, you analysis is wrong. The same goes for the people of Onitsha who had their own form of monarchy that controlled the city-state. Yes, some Igbo clans did not have one supreme authority figure, but that just shows that many Igbo clans were more advanced than the neighboring groups, because they practice TRUE DEMOCRACY.

That is why democracy can thrive in Igboland, where it cannot in other regions such as the North or in Yorubeland, in which you all need a single leader to control you all even if it is through bloodline. That is something that goes against Igbo culture, where every man is equal to the next.

The bolded is a very wrong statement. In the North, maybe, through the Emirs and the Sultan who is the spiritual head and all in all - but there is nothing like that in the Yorubaland- Oba's such as the Igboland's Ezes report to no one such as the Emir's in the North are subjects to the Sultan.

@op you need more enlightenment as a lot of things you wrote their is nothing but lies. Ibibio had no central authority just like Igbos. The Obong is no different from the Eze, Obi and Igwes of Igboland. Igbos had Ezes and Obis prior to colonization. The Kalabaris you mentioned had Igbos as their first Amanyanabos. There is an attempt to re-write that history though. The only thing Igbos did not have was ethnic consciousness. I doubt if Yorubas even had it as most of their history recognized Egba, Ijebu, Ijesha etc as distinct ethnicity. So at the end of the day, Yoruba was also a creation of Europeans.

Igbos are everywhere in the world. Cameroun alone which has a population of 20 million claims to have about 3million Igbos. Whether they were there as pre-colonial or post-colonial settlers, I doubt if any other Nigerian ethnic group has over 3million in another country.