₦airaland Forum

RedboneSmith:
What facts don't agree with me? How long did the Anglo-Aro war last? How long did the Ezza hold out against the British? Compare the duration of those two conflicts with the duration of other specific British wars of conquests in the West and in the North.

When people talk about Ekuemeku and how long the movement lasted, they often do not realise that it wasn't a continuous state of intense warfare between the Brits and the people. For most of the period that Ekumeku was resistant, they avoided actual battles with the British. They focused on acts of sabotage. Burning a building here. Killing a saboteur there. When the British got tired of that and went all out on them, the movement crumbled rather fast.

About being Igbo. Yes, I am. About being contrarian and being negative about the Igbo, I find that quite funny. Even though I am used to Igbos here saying that. Anyone who has open-mindedly been following me will see plenty occasions where I defend the Igbo passionately, chopping insults from non-Igbos in the process. It's only emotional people that will think I am being contrarian because I am not interested in entertaining falsehoods and mistruths in the course of defending the Igbo.

I mean, I didn't even say anything negative about the Igbo. All I said was they were not necessarily better military tacticians vis-a-vis their neighbours. The fact that you find this to be a slur on Igbo people tells me quite a lot.

I do not find what you said to be a slur on Igbos lol. I just gave my genuine opinion. Please go ahead and give me those stats on northern Nigeria. Please include the casualties involved. I am waiting.

Thebadpolitican:
Do you how many British soldiers the Benin moat swallowed alone


And how many general asoro killed at sokonba

You should have not included Benin in this your writeup, you just spoilt the thread by doing so

The Benin wars with the British was very detailed and was so racially inclined that accurate figures couldn't be gotten, the British wanted to look way superior than the primitive Black as they assumed in the face of the news

Please go ahead abd quote the figures for me. Trust me I am NOT here to trivialise the powerful benin kingdom.

RedboneSmith:
I always use my words carefully. Now, when I said "not necessarily better at military strategy than other groups", I was not saying the Igbo did not fight with skill. I have read "Bush Fighting" and knew some Igbo groups made good use of trenches and forest covering in their fights against colonialists. What I meant was that they were not necessarily BETTER than other groups whose territories were completely brought under Colonial rule in shorter time. Have you read about the British campaigns in Northern Nigeria? Have you read Harry Johnston's descriptions of Fulani fighting techniques? Even the Yorùbá of the 19th century had notable military generals and tacticians.

What made the difference in how colonialism engulfed the different groups had nothing to do with the Igbo being better at military tactics. The political geography was the number one deciding factor.

The facts dont agree with you. The only way to prove what is more or less effective is live demonstration. Complexity of strategy doesnt necessarily make it better. You are asking me if I read about the campaigns in Northern Nigeria when I already gave a brief talk about them. You are asking me if I read about Yoruba tactics as well when gave an example of Yoruba vs British forces. The question I am asking you is, have you read about the details of different battles in different places at different times? I admire your opinion when it comes to linguistics and culture but war...not so much.

Redbone, political geography is a wide broad net. You need to be more specific. Political fragmentation DOESN'T improve the military capabilities of any state. Just like any other theory, it doesnt change depending on location.

Please read to understand. POLITICAL FRAGMENTATION INDEED MEANS MILITARY FRAGMENTATION. Why? How can you have military unity without political unity? An agreement would have to made to face a superpower like the British.
During the Aro expedition, the Olokoro(politically and consequently militarily fragmented) stood idly by. But they were not far from the war geographically. Also the forces fought by the British at and around different villages (that were politically and therefore military united) were the same Aro forces.
Whilst fragmentation meant that the British fought more wars against the igbos, it did not mean that the igbo warriors could put up any better of a fight. Therefore no fragmentation was not a positive effect for Igbo forces.

I want to STRESS once again that the difference is exponential. The Anglo-Aro War was not just another skirmish in the African bush.

Slightly off topic. I am not trying to slander you lr anything but...I have seen you comment on many things Igbo. And it seems you yourself might be igbo. Your opinion is generally leaning on the negative side when it comes to the Igbo. I am not someone who likes the braggadocious attitude Nigerians bring to studying history. But I equally dislike the idea of always being contrarian.

holocron:
I think"divide and conquer" refers to dismembering the political unity of and entity and conquering before the components can become politically independent. If you don't conquer fast you may create a hydra headed monster whereby 9 new heads grow after cutting off only 1. The British met the Igbos fragmented but politically independent just like the ancient Greek city states of Sparta, Athens, etc

The point is that, if they are already divided you do not need to divide for them in the first place. There is no rule about "conquering fast" except the worry that they might reunite in the time you left them.

My point is, the time between these expeditions was such that having multiple political spheres was not the reason that individual battles were harder. In inevitably, if these polities were united with the Aro, the Aro field force (British army) would have lost a war of attrition. Initially they couldn't defeat the Olokoro (happened after the Aro war) and had to retreat and restrategise. If the Aro and Olokoro were together, then that would be problematic. They would likely have retreated for a long time, spending 8 months to order another batch of 3000 veterans whom had fought the ashanti.

holocron:
For this simple reason:
Igbos warring is hit and run guerrilla warfare taking advantage of the forest environment for cover, whereas the British preference is frontal assault where their artillery, machine guns and accompanying tactics offer advantages. So before the soldiers will arrive a village, the whole inhabitants will disappear into the surrounding forest and fight from there. And that village was politically autonomous.

It isn't that simple. If a village had 0 backing by any group, they would not fight in the first place. During the Aro campaign, only villages, aligned with the Aro fought. The rest did nothing. Doing Olokoro campaign, only villages aligned with the Olokoro fought. In this case "political autonomy" is not relevant. In fact much of the same fighters who fought in past towns and villages will be the same ones fighting in a new village. And the fighting DIDNT begin when the British arrived at a village but way before when the British encountered premeditated defensive formation designed for ambush.

davidnazee:
The British only remember the great war they fought with Benin Kingdom not the little skirmish they had with the igbos..

I wonder, what exactly do you mean?

If you are saying the skirmish the british had with Benin lasting a few days maximum and only inflicting 8 casualties is more famous then I agree. The plaques taken certainly made it famous.

But do not make an uninformed assumption. The Anglo-Aro war has the title, 'War', for a reason. The Benin expedition, was not a war. It was a battle that had far fewer resources used up.

You are an example of someone who doesnt have an appreciation for history but is motivated by tribal affiliation and hatred. I placed the statistics in front of you.

Anglo-Aro WAR:
British SOLDIERS: ~1600 excluding porters
Aro forces: ~7500
British casualties: 700-800
Length: 5 MONTHS

Benin EXPEDITION 1897:
British SOLDIERS: ~1200
Benin forces: Unknown but far higher
British casualties: 8 killed (idk how many injured)
Length: 5 DAYS


Which one is a skirmish Nairaland.

Also I have no hatred towards Edo people. The destruction of the 250 "traders" was very cunning and showed why Benin had so much influence.

Ogene001:
Benin never gave any serious fight as it was already a shadow of itself after slave trade was banned and Portuguese left. No more easy money from slave trade to maintain the criminal enterprise of the Portuguese erroneously called Benin empire

I am not gonna lie. Whilst I disagree with you on everything else. I kind of see your point here.

Ogene001:
You can see how real picture differ from your imaginary paintings even though it was built recently

But it didn't really. Yes there were some differences but generally accurate.

RedboneSmith:
Poltical fragmentation was the reason it took long to subdue the Igbo. They weren't necessarily better at military strategy than the other groups you mentioned.

In Igboland, every village had to be engaged and defeated separately. And as there are thousands of villages, this will understandably take a long time.

But the Hausas and the Yorubas who had been consolidated into fewer centralised states, it would obviously not take the same amount of time. All the British needed to do was defeat the central authorities and the subordinate villages fell in line.

Also I disagree with the notion that they "weren't any better at military strategy". Read Colonel Montaro's account. I think that is exactly what makes the difference. Throwing more men in does not change the outcome. Else we will see far more casualties inflicted on the british in northern Nigeria.

The only possible factors in my opinion are:

1. Igbos were better armed.
2. Igbos had better tactics, whether for communication, use of environment, formation of warriors etc
3. Igbos were more determined
4. Igbos had better knowledge of British tactics.

RedboneSmith:
Poltical fragmentation was the reason it took long to subdue the Igbo. They weren't necessarily better at military strategy than the other groups you mentioned.

In Igboland, every village had to be engaged and defeated separately. And as there are thousands of villages, this will understandably take a long time.

But the Hausas and the Yorubas who had been consolidated into fewer centralised states, it would obviously not take the same amount of time. All the British needed to do was defeat the central authorities and the subordinate villages fell in line.

You have a point but it doesn't change the fact that the British forces suffered casualties at a much higher rate. That is attributed to more than fragmentation. If anything fragmentation is great for war. You would have less people to fight at any one time. Its warfare 101. Reread the statistics I put out there. Compare Ijebu to Aro.

Addition:

I can confidently say that anyone who suggests this as a reason why an army suffers more casualties in a single battle or struggles with conquering has not being reading up on other wars or paths of conquest. Other tribes in east Africa with a similarish structure were not as difficult. We literally have the phrase "divide and conquer" for a reason.

Flangelo12:
Dem don call one of them out for South Africa for running his mouth.

How about you say something that is...relevant to the post?

From the mid 19th to the early 20th centuries, native states were defeated one after the other and bound together as "Nigeria".

When 'studying' the history of that area, the standard narrative that appears in surface level descriptions is as follows:

1. Hausa kingdoms were great but became corrupt and Usman dan fodio took over creating Sokoto caliphate which prompted the intensification of jihadists (also slave) raids into the south.
2. Kingdom of Benin were dominating all their neighbours, made great earthworks, made cool art, had an enviable capital city and once had control of lagos + western igbos.
3. Oyo empire had a calvary. Subjugated dahomey but lost to them later. Had very powerful armies that started fighting each other.
4. Igbos had no king and were poorer than their neighbours. Often dominated by neighbours. They lived in villages but did have a state called arochukwu and a religious state called nri. No armies, not very powerful.

But one has to examine things carefully. What actually happened when the British came to subjugate.

1. Hausas, Fulanis and Nupe trooped out in their thousands to fight, fielding armies of 10000, 15000 and sometimes 20000. They were defeated in short encounters with the british.
In Bida, the Bida army was nowhere to be seen when the British came.
In Kano the Kano emirate boasted thousands of infantry with a massive calvary of 3000 at kwatarkwashi. The British suffered only 44 casualties. Generally British army was around 600 to 1000 men in these conflicts.

2. The Benin kingdom destroyed 250 British infiltrators before they got the chance to be armed. When the actual army came a year later with 1200 men, they destroyed the city and the benin army only losing 8 men.

3. The Yoruba practically put up no resistance. The only notable war was the admirable effort of the Ijebus. In which there were about 500 british soldiers who suffered 56 dead and around 30 wounded. There were maybe 2 or 3 days of battle. Whilst the Ijebu had 8000 warriors and suffered 1000 dead.

4. The Igbo fought the British at every significant Igbo settlement. The Aro alone fought them for months in the Anglo Aro war which had 1600 british troops and 7500 Aro soildiers. In that one war the british losses were 700-800 killed or wounded (half the invading force as casualties). The Aro had heavy but unknown casualties, they pulled dead and wounded away from the trenches so the British did not discover the bodies. Is there something missing? Why did people supposedly in a much poorer and unsophisticated condition than the rest put up an exponentially better fight against the largest british force mustered in pre-colonial Nigeria?

Now the igbo anioma people (boasted to be igbo "slaves" of benin when suited and non igbo people when trying to diminish the size of igboland), have always been claimed to be under benin empire by surface level sources. I agree that the ika may have been but I strongly oppose that the rest may have followed suit. How is it that the anioma fought the british for 30 years whilst the bini lost in a few days?

Other very notable group resistance are the Olokoro, ezza and afikpo.

My theory is this. If you read the accounts (in london gazette archives) admitted by the leaders of the expeditions into igboland, you would see that countless towns were razed to the ground(without exaggeration) and that is only what was admitted.

I suspect that actually, the anthropologists that came into Igboland, saw an Igboland which was recovering from the ravages of war as the only major ethnicity to resist strongly in all corners. Igboland was vastly undocumented until about 1910 when most of these conflicts were concluded or drawing to a close.

I am asking that the comments in response are not drawn from tribal affiliation or hatred. I like truthful history and though I am Igbo, I genuinely objectively thought this through.

AbaganaMiracle:
Shut your terrorist gutter mouth. ESN are in our bushes and forests and clearing it off your fulani terrorist comrades. ESN is never found in the cities and even villages and that's why your fulani government sponsored UGM are running riot killing our people and then run back to media to tag your attrocities on IPOB/ESN, but some set our now fully our to rout out all of you fulani government UGM and your local enablers like Udele/OyigboUpdate.

How about you show some restraint and stop going around provoking people?

Goodday90:
How many herdsmen have the so called ESN arrested so far,and how come ESN couldn’t avert the attacks in Enugu some weeks back,ESN was created simply to intimidate and destroy
So cubana deserves death because he honored a sitting governor
And you expect the support of right thinking igbos?

Let me ask you.

Number 1: How would you find out that ESN apprehended anyone if not for the footage and video that the whole of Nigeria was discouraging them from posting when they had just begun their activities?

Number 2: Do you know the intensity of attacks by terrorists in Igboland? Maybe when ESN just arrived you could have discussed "why ESN didnt stop x" but you know that ESN has to watch their backs, they cant just be anywhere. Were you suddenly blind to army campaigns designed to destroy ESN? Isnt it the army that you should question here?

Number 3: If you look at Benue and Plateau state, can you point out the ESN that messed up those states?

Christistruth00:
Unfortunately it is only the South East that IPOB is burning to the Ground while their Elders Watch


People are fleeing from the South East to other parts of Nigeria' in Shiploads


Ordinary Wedding nobody wants to do it in the South East anymore so that they will not be attacked by unknown Gunmen

You arent seeing the dynamic properly. SE is on fire because there are multiple battles way more complex than you realise on the ground. IPOB didnt burn the SE to the ground. The "Elders" did. As I said earlier the crucial mistake made was by Igbo leaders not legitimising ESN. The random gunmen you see are mostly not IPOB or ESN. It is ignorance to act like "Unknown Gunmen" is a single group.

Hizzy:
I want peace nofin but peace

Me too. But there is a difference between peace and idleness

NothingDoMe:
Any rejoinder to the comment above?

I have replied to it and have nothing more to say. If he still thinks he has a point, its on him.

Arkmanbuddy:
I tell you for a fact that Nnamdi Kanu would be so surprised and flattered if he reads this piece. He'd feel honoured for the credit of planning what he never did.

Except that is exactly what MNK said he would do. He literally told you that they would bring their army down to the east whilst the flanks are open in the North so that bandits will consume them. There are hours of Radio Biafra broadcasts were he lays this out.

Phase 2:
The extraordinary rendition of MNK. I do not think that this one was predicted. If it were it would really be amazing. But Nigeria not understanding law as I said earlier lead to their undoing. They "captured" MNK when already he had executed the plan which is only reversible by God. He always said "there is nothing anybody can do about it". I think he also meant himself. If you capture MNK, still ESN has been formed on principles. It will defend itself and Nigerian soldiers will die as a result. The flanks of the North will remain open.

Now IPOB has prepared for a long time a formidable case against the Nigerian government on all aspects. Fuelled by the actions of Nigeria from before it was even properly formed. In regards to IPOB it has had a history of being persecuted by Nigeria way before any talks of arming people. Nigeria was never prepared to defeat IPOB Lawyers in a fair court with its criminal judges.

So now Nigeria has been stupid enough to kidnap a man with dual citizenship on foreign soil, it has now given much needed attention to the Biafran cause at the season were the nature of the bandits is being seen plainly.

Why did MNK set in place a seemingly irreversible plan? It is simple, to make those who caused the deaths of IPOB members and also those who were silent at their suffering to pay dearly. And to give the Nigerian cabal a taste of what it feels like to play a rigged game.

And most importantly what is the answer to this puzzle for One-nigerianists? Restructure Nigeria, set a referendum in motion and end the foolish distribution of troops. Why? IPOB has never been interested in forcing Biafra on anyone. And a nation which is sensible will at least conduct such a referendum, confident that the majority will choose to remain in that country.

Now I did not make this post for pro-IPOB people to celebrate. Neither did I make it for anti-IPOB people to rant. But for objective people to come analyse carefully.

Look. MNK always said "there is a method to our madness" and "the evil you have created will consume you". And people have made the mistake in telling IPOB that their actions are mad. It is like telling a sprinter that he runs very fast. MNK himself has told you that the actions are mad. Many IPOB members did not understand that themselves and were busy trying to justify things as not being mad.

It is coming to light now with the new BBC Africa Eye documentry. These are things that many Nigerians denied or where ignorant of the depth of it. It is something that Nigerian politicians generally have known for a while though. But didnt expect to get this bad.

Now lets get straight to the point.

MNKs plan was based on "assumptions". The plan would only work if the state of the world was the way that MNK described in his many broadcasts. The plan was to genuinely create ESN to clear the bushes of communities marked as Biafran from fulani jihadists. Now the first few "assumptions":
1. The Nigerian state is colluding with these terrorists.
2. The Nigerian state is particularly heavy handed with Igbo people.
3. The Nigerian Army is compromised.
4. The Nigerian Army is not fighting Boko Haram etc with earnest.
5. The Nigerian Airforce is compromised.
6. The Nigerian Airforce is not fighting Boko Haram etc with earnest.

These assumptions meant that the Nigerian military would definitely over commit to the SE in particular at the expense of Northern areas that need the protection of that military. It also meant that if ESN is not the threat they are presented as, they would still stay in SE causing a scene as obviously they are particularly heavy handed with Igbo people. And it also meant that they would not utilise their presence to erase the jihadist militia.

So what happened was simple the military came down into Igbo land with full force like a bunch of bandits. A very moronic move. Initially they were repulsed from ESN camps. Whom did not come after any military formation. MNK constantly boasted of their effectiveness and some IPOB members kept wondering why MNK "exposed" ESN like that. There were a couple of reasons. One was to show ESN as genuine. They were doing the task they were presented as being formed to execute. You saw all the videos of illegal settlements being burnt and cows being killed on farmland. Here come the next list of "assumptions".

1. The government is only anti-open grazing in name but is pro-open grazing in action (MNK showing it being enforced will make anger the government)
2. The Nigerian government is inept when it comes to law and will think they now have a legal upperhand on IPOB lawyers in the international court and feel emboldened.
3. The Nigerian government will be advocate for criminals in SE forest yet were silent years before as raids were carried out on SE farmers and villages.
4. The terrorists and Nigerian army have the same uniforms, strategy and often work in tandem.
5. Igbo leaders are incompetent, jealous and cant take advantage of ESN.
6. ESN will be proven to have been needed in the future.

Now the ESN which was legitimately formed to stop the menace of jihadi militants have no choice but to protect its camps from attacks from Nigerian army forces which are indistinguishable from jihadists. Which will mean the army sent to attack them will be whittled down if they do have effective defensive formation and guerilla tactics. Unless of course the military are using new tactics unheard of by Boko Haram etc which they seem to be fighting on par with or Boko Haram etc has infiltrated the army.

So what happened. The army drew out ESN from the forest by attacking civilians on the street beginning the famous Orlu conflict in which the army and air force was embarrassed. Not because ESN had a decisive victory but simply because the ESN wasnt designed for such conflicts but still held its own and only air force intervention could make the army useful.

In all this MNK said is plan in the open because he had such confidence that the government's bias would make them ignore the obvious and the fulani jihadi militia would remain as determined as ever. Simply allow the terrorist army to walk all over Biafraland opening the flanks in the North and allowing an irreversible take over by bandits. Which is were the BBC documentary comes into play. Many fools have been downplaying the insecurity and maintaining the "Hausa-fulani" rubbish all in order to spite IPOB not knowing that the refusal would cost them so dearly. It is now so bad that BBC in Africa which btw has been generally pro Nigerian government had to publish this documentary instead of the normal "Farmer-Herder Clash" lies.

Next these bandits have grown powerful enough to fully operate in the FCT. Yes it is bad for Igbo people in FCT and the north but MNK has always warned Igbo people in Nigeria not to be caught out in the North.


Now this could all have mostly been avoided by one thing. The Igbo leaders discarding their jealousy and fully legitimising the ESN. Was the ESN needed? Seemingly not to ordinary Nigerians as the level of danger wasnt as the level that 50000 armed volunteers seemed comparable. As Nigerians are very oddly reactive people unlike most of the thriving world who arent just proactive but they prepare for hypothetical scenarios. ESN was simply proactive. At the time there were calls for regional security in the East IGNORED by SE and SS governors. Amotekun was created in SW and initially was deemed illegal but backed and made legal. But even they were not effective enough as they didnt have AK47 but that is in hindsight. ESN at that time had AK47 and RPG because their assumptions about the nature of supposed "herdsmen" was correct.

Now they have been vindicated as Ortom of Benue is trying to procure AK47 for his new volunteer force. Which has been resisted by the government. Now we could have bypassed both the arms inequality and the lack of volunteers in one jump. But jealousy killed it. As a CONSEQUENCE Nigeria has damaged itself. IPOB plan was simply an acceleration of present conditions if the right steps were not done. But the choice lay in the hands of the government and SE+SS leaders.

ivolt:
Nonsense.
There is nothing unethical about the report.
Nobody who is not already a bandit or their supporter will watch the interview and then decide to go join them.

The interview did not glorify banditry, in fact, bandits were portrayed as bloodthirsty barbarians
who justifies their atrocities with illogical entitlement mentality.

BBC have interviewed terrorists such as Alqaeda and Taliban leaders over the years.
The bandits are not special.

The question Nigerians should be asking is why the government which definitely knows
where the terrorists are camping have refused to engage them?

If Buhari has acted years ago, BBC will have nothing to report.

Kadaria Ahmed is angry that the BBC outed the bandits.
She has always been against exposing the identities of the marauding bandit
because she is supposedly against "ethnic profiling".

Kadaria is in the habit of defending her beloved Fulani bandits and would prefer the north burn than anyone point out the elephant in the room.
Here is one of her previous defense.
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/opinion/442839-nigerian-media-lets-stop-ethnic-profiling-by-kadaria-ahmed.html

Spot on

homosapien:
How many thread have be created on Tinubu alone, how many have been created to call out your political leader on these forum alone. Bring it out then we start proper discussion.

Tinubu is the primary presidential candidate for APC. Simple.

homosapien:
Same things was said when Zik almost became the premier of the western region..



If you understand the write-up, you realize that it is just a clarion call for the Yoruba not to fall into the gimmick of the nonsense Obedient mantra. Tell me which politician is not corrupt. Both the East and North turn a blind eye to the mismanagement of your political elite, yet Tinubu is on the name of every lip in iboland.


Your hypocrisy is out of these world. The write up is to enlighten the Yorubas before it too late.

I keep seeing this unfounded insinuation that Igbo people dont call out their leaders. It is funny. It makes no sense.

DeepThroater:
The ZIONISTS are in the race with the Jihadists by the way.


This.

I thank God people are beginning to realize that international Zionism and International Jihadism are one and the same.

It is also very important to note that Igbo Zionism and Fulani Jijadism , has but one goal : to continue to maintain the multicultural cesspit called one nijeriya .

Both the Igbo and Fulani share the same exact political outlook for Nigeria . Their own differences being which should dominate the rest of the nationals in Nigerian.

You can not be a Zionist aka Internationalist like the Fulani and still claim to be a Nationalist.

This is where Biafraism clothed in Zionist garb exposes its fallacy .

The Yoruba have been sleeping .

But they caused their own slumber by promoting one Nigerianism and so should not complain .

The Yoruba wants his cake and wants to eat it as well. The Niger Delta stolen wealth you partake in without batting an eye is why you support one Nigeria.

The Igbo is a parasitic leach that can not be contained in his blighted yeast land and this must spread out everywhere or else he is doomed to hunger and poverty. But unlike how the north keeps the Igbo ever mindful of the fact that he is not in his useless village with much needed timely reminders in the form of the usual reoccurring beheadings and pillaging of Igbo properties in the north, the Yoruba has not found a way of reminding the Igbo that the land he is is not his village.

In the Niger Delta, we have our ways of drilling sense into the Igbo on knowing his limits .

I find what you are saying very ironic. The place were we settled as PARASITES become more successful. What kind of reverse parasitism is this? Lagos in which there isnt as frequent periodic persecution as you admit is thriving. Abuja is Gwari land. And the Niger delta is in pieces apart from were there is heavy Igbo concentration or generally less hate towards igbo people.

ncheochiagha:
Initially, you are the one that brought up the idea of some religions being "evil forces". I don't believe any of those religions are necessarily evil forces. That whole notion is very unproductive. One of your points I forgot to address was "we don't know the origins of traditional religion". For me what matters is that the religion was born and bred in Biafra/Omu Aro, so we can call it ours. But for you, you don't care where the religion came from as long as you believe it is the truth. That's where we differ ideologically, and there's nothing we're doing to change each others' minds, but we can learn something from each other. So let's respectfully agree to disagree

Indeed I did and I still maintain it. I have no problem with you viewing Christianity like that. BUT I do have a problem with you painting my likening as a genuine point. As if I am lacking knowledge when you know the reason I said that. I agree to disagree.

Tosdam:
Tutor them please..... Azikiwe even betrayed his people for his selfish interest.. History is there to guide them...

Tutor them, guide them...

Me I am looking for the correlation between you saying I should support criminals like Tinubu and you guys tutoring about Azikiwe.

In the end, this is how you see it. You see pesky Igbo people. The same people you'd rather live in the same country as. You are spending time here trying to spite us. Look we wont support someone like Tinubu. Yoruba, igbo or white.

Invictuse:
Just try understanding why igbos hate Awolowo but love the failure Azikwe even with his outstanding qualities in governance.

Why they hate MKO though the philanthropist is loved by every other section of Nigeria.

No Yoruba should waste time selling Tinubu or appease these bigoted jesters, they are nurtured from the womb with endemic hate n chronic bigotry for all those superior to them which the Yorubas have proven times without numbers.

Ever wonder why it is the only tribe to claim Hausa Fulanis Ikwerre Efik Ibibio Nupe Kanuri Itshekiri Gabonese Kenyans Zimbabweans Arabs Malaysians Singaporeans Cambodians Indians Pakistani South Africans Ghanaians Cameroonians all hate them but they can never talk about them loving anyone.


https://www.nairaland.com/7197228/pictures-one-schools-tinubu-built

Igbo people generally dont hate Abiola and dislike Azikiwe. The fact you think we dont want tinubu because he is YORUBA of all reasons is hilarious.

Factcheck0001:
u mean all d story of Lagos been capital is d response?

Tell me how obi outperformed tinubu as governor

Yes I mean that. Unless you mean to tell me that I was wrong. Because I wasnt. Objective comparison only would work if they governed the same state. Or similar states.

ncheochiagha:
Maybe because that stuff you're mentioning is not Odinani. It's witchcraft and occultism. The white man has brainwashed you to the point that you don't know the difference. "Cannibalism", "Twin killing", you say. All that is more Europeans lies you believe since they're your God. Our society was too sophisticated as at then for that stuff to be the norm.The only form of sacrifice was the Osu caste system in which case they weren't actually killed but tied to a shrine. That system was mostly a penal system since we didn't do prisons at that time. Slave trade was also penal, and it was Europeans that did most of the atrocities. Even if you add up everything you accuse Odinani of, it still doesn't compare to the carnage unleashed by Christianity and Islam. Again, tell me which religion is the evil force? Clearly, you're completely brainwashed because you're still not getting my points or my theories. You didn't even bother to look up Dum Diversas something that shows how American genocide is directly linked to Christianity. At least my post has a lot of views. If I impact 1000 people, why am I bothering myself with you. You can go worship your British god, and let we who love our land be.

No no no. You cant do this. You have to accept what I was doing. I was making you understand that if Christians doing a bad act makes it a Christian act. Then Odinani followers doing a bad acts makes it a Odinani act. I was showing you the errors of your ways but of course you dont wanna understand. Do not come and get angry that I simply doing what you did then paint it as some misunderstanding. Europeans havent brainwashed me. Just like them I can come to my own conclusions. I am not a kid.

You can come say it is directly linked to Christianity. I disagree. Why the heck would I decide to assume something so far-fetched. I am sure that anyone who did twin-killings etc tried to justify it within their own belief system odinani. A colonist justifying their acts by supposedly using Christian beliefs doesnt mean that the act was Christian influenced. Simply means that they had to excuse it. If you feel so strongly, go explain how it was Christian. Dont expect me to explain your own point.

You are telling me that I dont know anything whilst repeating the proven lie that some Christianity is BRITISH of all things. Its laughable. I thought you were sensible but calling me brainwashed for what you phrase as "not absorbing" your points is just code of for not agreeing with you. Cease it. You are clearly emotionally charged here.

ncheochiagha:
I also like how you're here for a real conversation, but you seem not to be absorbing my points. Are you trying to tell me that Osu are on top today? Clearly not. We have equality now, but they did not become richer than free borns by being Christian, so your point doesn't stand there. A lot of the wealthy men in the south today still worship their Odinala privately. Most of them are part those same secret societies of old. Their wealth did not disappear. The only people that worship publicly are those in the villages because they're not part of the mainstream colonised culture.

Also, let's quickly look at the scoreboard

Islam - Terrorist Attacks like 9/11 where they leveled two skyscrapers they could never dream of building, Boko Haram in Nigeria
Christianity - Dum Diversas, Mass genocide in the Americas
Odinani - ...

So you see you have no basis to call your great grandfather's religion "an evil force that leads to bad". Because that religion has done nothing bad to anyone.

No I certainly am not saying that Osu has dissolved completely but certainly is well on its way. And regardless of what you think of Osu, what I said was a fact. The first igbo Christians were Osu and since then the treatment of Osu people has only improved and their status has improved.

Now you are saying Christians have done this and that. As long as the perpetrator is Christian you are willing the label "MASS GENOCIDE IN THE AMERICAS" which has no connection to Christianity as a Christian influence. So basically anything bad our ancestors have done is listed under the evil of odinala firstly according to your logic. Now let me add cultism, ritual killing, money ritual craze, yahoo yahoo boys and the arochukwu slave trade facilitated by the priest class.

In fact let me go further to some of the Odinala practices that our ancestors did. Well documented human sacrifice, twin killing, albino killing, creating caste systems and cannibalism. Now you will come say "Thats not odinala" I bet. But there is not even any stable recording place of what Odinala which practically means the laws of the land. If it is what its name suggest then the condoned law of the land precolonially is all odinala.

I will say it again. Before Odinala, do we know what our ancestors did? No. Because they didnt record it as far as we know.

ncheochiagha:
I've not even really explained my theory. Even if it's a white man's religion, what's bad about that? After centuries it'll still become Africanised right?

Well, my theory is that for any nation to develop they need to get their society right. And by right I mean the formula that all the successful nations of the last century used: (A) A well-defined ethnic group (B) The ethnic group has a standardised written language (C) The ethnic group has a religion that they identify with. This is the formula Britain and her children (US, Canada) used. It's what Japan used. Japan is an interesting case because they industrialised late, but because they checked all three boxes they could easily mobilise their population to achieve certain goals. Why does this formula work? It's about brotherhood. When a group of people have common identity and religion that is theirs [keyword, theirs], they don't have problem working with each other. They'll be able to build strong institutions that work for them, and if they also have written language and a good ideology, their country will really prosper.

Nigeria definitely doesn't have (A) and (C). You can argue we have (B), but no one has forgotten that English comes from England, so it's not ours, plus there's really no 'ours' to speak of because we're not a defined ethnic group.

This is where the mental colonisation comes in. We don't really have a meaningful identity. Like my friend once said we're just a nothing people. Everything we do is just sort of imitating oyinbo. We primarily use Engish because we don't have our own sophisticated language. A number of us have names like Patrick and James, when we're not from England. We see our own core culture as backwards. We see our core religions as literal evil. I mean we're conquered, and oyinbo is laughing at us. Until we get the foundation right we're not going anywhere.

I invite anyone that's interested in this politics stuff to join the discussion server, so that we have a closed space to share ideas
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
https://discord./4DzkExgd

A nation needs common values not a common religion. A common religion is however the best way to derive those values. That religion is Christianity. As for writing we can adapt Nsibidi and ethnicity...I think these biased people have shut down a certain topic.

ncheochiagha:
That's because the system the British set up in Nigeria benefits the northern elites the most, and the northern Fulani elite thoroughly control the North so whether the masses like Britain or not is irrelevant. It's simple as that. Also, being mentally colonised isn't really about being obedient to Britain.



Your world view is that that Christianity is this holy good force that leads to progress and then your ancestor's Odinani is this evil force that leads to bad. This is what we call a constructed perception in my debate society. And we always say that you have to know the distinction between a perception and reality. A perception is based on cherry-picked information. Now, let me give you the full picture...

Yes, the places that are more traditional are more backwards but that's simply because under the current order traditional IS backwards, so it's only backwater areas that will still practice our religion, and since they're so poor they make it look so dirty. Imagine a world were Odinani was well-organised, it was the mainstream religion, and the country (Biafra) was prosperous. The temples would be clean and the oracles and ezes would be highly esteemed, and people would even look to the religion as the source of all that is good. There's no evidence that your ancestor's religion actually has evil energy that make things bad, so all that is just perception.

Yes, Ethiopia was not colonised. At that time they were more militarily advanced than the rest of us, but not by much. There was also probably some other factors like the difficult terrain that made it hard to establish the same kind of hegemony, but that one needs more research. Part of why they had that military advantage is the same reason they were more Christian and Muslim: they were not as isolated as us, so they got all that influence from the Middle East.

Before replying let me say. I like the way you are here for real conversation.

You can say that it benefits them. If it only benefits their elites it is useless. Can you not say the elites in the south are also benefitting? You are giving reasons for this and that but it seems like there is an excuse of why your theory is not actually coming to effect anywhere. The trend doesnt exist! You say Ethiopia wasnt colonised partly because of its mountainous terrain in which its hard to establish that hegemony but then we Igbo people lived in a massive forest probably just as difficult terrain wise to colonise and was proven by the fact that we fought for decades. The real reason Ethiopians won, wasnt their better technology but better organisation and their organisation in turn from their motivation and their motivation in turn from their religion. Their influence from the middle east was get this Christianity and Judaism. Not war stratagems. They got that from fighting.

The north had their middle eastern influence too. The dudes got annihilated 100 times easier than us in war. Look at the war records in expeditions listed in london gazette article and compare it to the ones in igboland.

Finally your theory that Odinani is practiced in impoverished areas because it is seen as backwards is wrong. Christianity was what was seen as for "backwards" people as the first Christians were in fact Osu people. Whilst the wealthy classy chiefs like my grandfather were part of the cults, Okonkwo, Ekpe etc. Those Christians realised they were free and started thriving and evangelising too. No, its quite simple people become Christians because they think it is true.

Odinani as we know it is an evil force that leads to bad. There is no way to tell how old it is and how far back my ancestors practiced it. What about their ancestors? What were they practicing? And where did Odinani come from? And what was the situation in that day? You see? The only way to pick a "religion" is what you are convinced is true. Simple.