₦airaland Forum

Savagereplaya:
Good afternon my people,i am new in the house..
I have made up my mind to travel,work and reside in south africa and i already have about 500,000 thousand in my account....
Please note i dont have anybody or any place to reside,but i know if i move over there i will find accomodation
please what type of visa do i need to apply for and how much will it cost me
and again what are the necessary documents that i need to have before applying for the visa!!

Thanks waiting for quotes!

Come are you serious, 500,000 naira abi 500,00 rand, which one?

The odds for you is that you will end up homeless after a period of time and will begin to hustle odd jobs and roam the streets with that kind of money. Have you thought this thing out or are you just one of those who likes to chok head and see wetin happen.

Of course in your mind you will say I am merely trying to dissuade you from your venture but truth be told the probability is you cannot reach any where with that amount of money and will end up like most people like yourself that go to SA without planning out very well.

I wish you luck if you take the leap but mathematically speaking if I were a betting man the odds are seriously against you succeeding.

cucumbar:
it’s like Capetown has a white majority, and jo’burg, more of the locals right?

Cape town is a more tourist like city so you will find more foreign visitors who are mostly from Europe, however depending on where you stay there is a majority of black people that reside there so don't be deceived. The tourist areas will have more white people, Cape town CBD will have more "black" and colored peoples around the area.

ebose09:
Now am really scared........thinking of staying in joburg for 10days but this get at me.....my uncle was the 1st person that told me ds but thot he wanted to scare me

Just avoid the CBD and you will be fine, there are many places outside of the CBD you are able to get so do your research well

goalernestman:
Yes that truth because I have research that all igbo king with the title obi are prince and chef of Benin kingdom


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DOXZ9rJVIMh4&ved=2ahUKEwiV84yagMbhAhX7UxUIHUTIDwoQwqsBMBB6BAgHEAU&usg=AOvVaw3ApzXS-93AD-hiCC-MW9-i

The king of isele uku says were his people came from in the link above

I could care less were a King alludes to the origins of his people, not that it does not bear any validation to the narrative origins of a people only that it is subordinate to the evidence using linguistic or genetic inference. Its that simple.

Case in point in southern Africa the Ndebele and the Zulu are two distinct ethnic groups who culturally and nationally are identified as two different ethnic groups with varying origin stories and folktales. The language spoken by these two groups though dis-similar have the same originating "founder" population_in other words their language comes from a proto-language knowns as Nguni. They do not speak this proto language any longer however the two "variations" or "dialects" that have formed through time are undoubtedly from the same source population alluding to the fact that they are closely related to each other in the distant past more so than they are to other surrounding groups

Keep in mind that these two groups absorbed other smaller clans and groups and incorporated certain elements of these languages into their main language i.e. the existence of the click sound in southern African languages.

Two groups of people are able to merge into one group but linguistically one may prove the dominant language used when you reverse engineer; alluding to the probability that this dominant group were the main founders of that population that emerge out of the Union both in cultural practice, linguistically and most likely genetically.

This argument does not want to speak truth to it and keeps dancing around the obvious. An ethnic identity is fluid and subjective. An Ika person can self determine as IKa however he cannot and should not lie about his obvious origins. the evidence is there to analysis if one is serious about being strictly "objective' about the subject matter.


Self detemination should not be rooted in false premises and lies that cannot be backed up by factual evidence.

Shikena!

goalernestman:
I see ikas defending their history why some igbo who was given birth to in 19th century is saying what they dont know, who can tell me the meaning of Osita Osadebe in igbo, but this have a meaning in benin.

ika is older than igbo infact Ika and igala give birth to igbo of today not the Hebrew scam history by kanu, am a benin boy but all time i have see real ika origin talking about their origin, they will always say they are from benin and not igbo, dien of agbor recently say this and even warn his people not to give igbo names to their children anymore, obi of aunicha claim they came from benin infarct it in wikipidia just google Asaba Agbor or anicha origin and it will all say it benin so it fact. so why are igbo killing their self because of this fact.

Any professional linguist who studies language patterns will laugh at the bolded part above. If you reverse engineer the Ika language you will simply see it's foundations are rooted in a common proto- language as those spoken by the so called collective group known as IGBO people with the ika dialect heavily impressed by a language of benin extract.

Self determination should not be rooted in false premises and lies. You can self determine as IKA but you cannot disconnect your common ancestral ties to the the people collectively called IGBO. They are far more closely related to you than a Yoruba, Efik, Hausa or Fulani man.

Shikena!

ogbonti:
pleasem i learnt this man is illiterate in Arabic. they better watch him well before he signs away Nigeria and Nigerians as territory and slaves to the Arabs, see as his open all him 32 teeth for ground when talking to his muslim brother, but when he is with western leaders, he looks like who no sabi talk, axz-h-o-l-e!!!!

you blame the guy na caliphate stretch from Middle east enter Nigeria, no be him brothers dan fodio from north sell non muslims to Arab slave traders.

chineloSA:
I don't even think he is dead again.

He is probably trying to start all over again in life. He could not continue normally, so he had to kill himself again and ressurect in private.

The man is not dead at all.

Yes o. All of a sudden he got to his village, died there and was buried quick quick. Don't mind Moyo He is coming back to SA with a new identity alias Bongiwe Khumalo or lovemore Sibanda.

Na South Africa runs be this o!

delugajackson:
He thought he could cheat nature but unfortunately, nature has proven to be smarter than him. He officially declared himself dead both in the spiritual and physical realm the moment he got into that coffin. And trust me, the Heavens honored his decision and Hell sealed his fate.

This should serve as a deterrent to those who chose to be used as puppets for these charlatans to perform their fake miracles. Be careful what you wish for. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you pretend to be blind, you will surely be struck with blindness. If you pretend to be mad, you will surely run mad, if you fake your own death, you will die mysteriously. Its only a matter time b4 nature takes its course.

Karma is the law of cause and effect. Your actions or way of thinking creates a cause and in time, you will see and feel the effects it has in your life. Your acts and thoughts are entirely your responsibility making your Karma ENTIRELY YOUR OWN.

correlation does not imply causation. Two events that are related to each other does not imply one caused the other.

The two events are both actions that occurred INDEPENDENT of each other and not one reaction as a cause of one action. The cause of Mr Moyo's demise is probably something logical i.e. HIV, sickness, e.tc. not God punishing him for faking his own death.

Na wa for you people.

Daddy Freeze, please sh.ut. up!

correlation does not imply causality. Simply because two events are coincidental does not mean one caused the other.

Mr Moyo probably get Hiv and was dieng already and simply wanted to benefit somehow before his demise by pulling a fast one on us, after all what has he got to loose.

Daddy Freeze please sh.u.t Up!!!

@ OP

Like most people have alluded to, it is likely your brother is on the verge of developing a mental illness. Though studies claim that there is no conclusive evidence of weed being the final causality of mental illness it is without doubt a catalyst in some sort of way. Some people here are trying to justify their habits or simply wish to be ignorant of the possibilities of jump starting something they may be predisposed to


When you tackle the symptoms your relative is exhibiting in its early stages, the probability for a better outcome is much higher for the patient over the long term.

It is essential you take this person to the psychiatric hospital so he is put in a stable and controlled environment where doctors can determine if these are just temporary psychotic incidents or if there is some permanent damage that is occurring.

Your story is not the first nor will it be the last concerning weed addicts or smokers becoming mentally ill. I suspect weed reduces the threshold for the onset of someone who is already predisposed to the illness genetically.


Take your relative to the hospital.

Shikena!

Amujale:
Most of what you write here is Eurocentric and Asiatic gibberish; unAfrican.

You cannot think to claim that any of the above text has anything to does with Africa.

Stop & Think!


The Eurocentric/Asiatic version of African history you peddle is false.

African history is very African.

Data is Data. it does not lie. There is implicit or confirmation bias in the interpretation of data depending on who is analyzing the info.

Europeans are very guilty of this, however the data speaks for itself every time.

Hati13:
There is no evidence that EthioSemite come from outside. This branch need AT LEAST 5000 years to diversify like it did. This date is near for the origin of Semitic. And it’s known that Semitic and Cushitic have strong relationship and almost all Cushitic are found in Ethiopia. The closet Middle East Semitic language to EthioSemitic is Akkadian not south Arabian. Akkadian is the oldest of all Middle East Semitic languages. EthioSemitic and Akkadian are sister language which split from proto-Semitic.

////, totally confused by this response it doesn't really tell me anything

Hati13:
Few Semite from the Middle East mixed with Ethiopians but it magnitude wasn’t like some exaggerated to be. It was small.

Every genetic test conducted on most Ethiopian groups show almost a 50% austosomal genetic inheritance from West Asian haplogroups. Their YTdna remains mostly African which means most of the men were of Ethiopian origin but their Mtdna shows West Asian origins at a high degree as well. Google is your friend please use it to look up genetic studies on Ethiopians.[/quote]

Hati13:
Yes Ethiopians are ancient African ppl who originated in East Africa but they aren’t all Cushitic (by the current Cushitic aren’t the ancient Cushitic). There is no evidence that Amara and Tigrean or other EthioSemitic speakers originated as a result of so called Cushitic and west Asian mixture. The bulk of West Asian component on Amara or Tigrean or other Ethiopians predate the existence of Cushitic and Semitic.

Laughable. Of course not all Ethiopians are not Cushitic in origin however most of them are. There have been large exchanges of genetic material from West Asia to main land East Africa and vice versa for thousands of years. It is ridiculous to believe that people that live in these regions are not a good mix of both peoples across the sea anymore so than it is ridiculous to believe that Northern Sudanese do not have a good mix of West Asian DNA in a good amount of their people baring the southern Sudanese people who are less of a mix between West Asian and Arab.

Semetic languages originated in the levant, spread to the middle east and then back into the Horn.

There is a correlation between the groups that speak Semetic languages in Ethiopia and the degree of West Asian genetic ancestry. In other words the groups that speak Semetic languages in Ethiopia are the groups with the highest admixture of West Asian genetic material. Example; an Oromo Cushitic speaker will generally have less West Asian admixture than an Amharic Semetic speaker.

Amujale:
Btw i dont understand Africans having subgroups. Most of what you write here are Eurocentric and Asiatic giberish.

Maybe you refer to Africans with our diversity.

Well the point is that ,everyone in the world have good reason to appreciate Africans diversity.

The reason everyone appreciates the diversity of Africans is due to the fact that modern day humans enjoy their current genetic make-up as a result of Africans and their ancestry.

Africans invented, or are gifted with', THE generic building blocks responsible for, and traceable to , what is seen in post-modern day humans.

Every group of people have diversity in look and in features. This includes Africans who are not a monolithic group by any stretch of the imagination.

We understand you want to propagate an Afrocentric mind set but please not at the expense of scientific facts.

Europeans did not invent intelligence nor can they deny fact. The data is reproducible as regards genetics everytime which is why it is FACT!

Native Americans do not have the same genetics as Contemporary African peoples therefore they are not AFRICAN in the way it is understood genetically today.

Amujale:
I am sorry but its in my opinion that you possess an incorrect understanding of African history.

African history is not equivalent with genetic studies. HISTORY IS NOT GENETICs!

Amujale:
Eventhough i agree with much of your post, the above that does not read too well.

The fact that they are darkskinned infact does indeed make them African due to the fact that they hailed from Africa, which in itself also makes them African.

The basic truth is that in those days, everyone is African and therefore everyone at the time was darkskinned or have the adequate amount of melanin to assist humanity.

In todays world, maybe possessing darker skin doesnt automatically make you African, however in those days, before the 'Out of Africa' experience, everyone was African and as a result all humans alive at the time possess all the African features.

Nonsensical. Which "days" are you talking about. You can't even put dates to your assertions or a time continuum to support your garbage.

Let me help you.

100,000 to 200,000 years ago Homo sapien emerged. During this period there were waves of Humans leaving Africa. These humans approximate phenotypical representation would be closer to what Africans look like today. This is a PROBABILITY and not AN ABSOLUTE.

2. These humans bottled necked into smaller groups with lesser mutations than the ones preceding them. This event would alter their genetic makeup as well as their phenotypical attributes. As these groups splintered they carried smaller genetic variations among the groups that drifted. In addition to encounters with other human species i.e. Neandethal and Denisovan the picked up additional genetic material.

3. Phenotypical changes occurred based on selective breeding, adaptation to environment, nutrition and random genetic mutations. Some people retained their African features while drifting genetically away from Africans. Others lost African features and gained new features while still staying closer in genetic morphology to Africans. This is the reason a European is genetically closer to an African than a Papau new Guinean even though the papau new Guinean still physically resembles an African.


Keep spouting your fake pseudo science based on Afrocentrism. Fact will always win at the end of the day

Amujale:
Please stop all attempts to try an differentiate ancient Africans from their modern peers. It didnt make sense to differentiate then, and it certainly does not make sense to differentiate ancient peoples from their post-modern peers of today.

Africans are the only people that have the RIGHT and the correct qualifications to determine who IS or is NOT African.

And most Africans agree with me on the fact that African ancestors are very very African.

Hence, everyone on planet earth at the time possess African features, therefore, everyone in those days was African.

The people that took part in the 'Out of Africa' experience, are African for thousands upon thousands of years before taking control of other regions on planet earth.

I.e The first people to occupy the Europe lived as part of a larger African family thousands upon thousands years prior to their migration.

Therefore, the first wave of people to arrive in the Europe in anyone's mind are indeed African.

Appreciate the great beacon of our world that is called Africa, stop trying to stifle her.

Lets employ common sense.

No common sense at all, by your definition above everyone that lives outside of African are all African then including Europeans so regardless of physical appearance since their ancestors hailed originally from Africa you should call them African going forward.

fieryy:
I'm sorry for the late reply. Completely forgot about it.
If you're going by the "Out of Africa" theory, then you're going way too far because that'll mean we're all Africans. The first people who settled in Europe weren't white, but darkskinned. In fact AFRICANS because according to the "Out of Africa" theory, life started in Africa. However that was hundred of thousands years ago.

The white skin mutation ONLY took place in Eurasia, so of course the rest of the world maintained their dark skin.

The Aborigines of North America weren't white, the Aborigines of Australia weren't white either. But the fact that they were DARKSKINNED doesn't make them Africans either, we've been separated for very long to say that, just like we've been separated from Europeans for way too long.

The only difference is the mutation that affected the skin color and eyes, to sum it up - melanin

Spot on, however this concept flies over Amujale's head each time you try to steer him to the right thinking. He dismisses your claims as falsehood yet he really doesn't grasp what you are trying to convey because he lacks the genetic component of his argument that completely destroys his assertions. You can keep trying but you are just beating your head against a stone wall.

HE DOES NOT GET IT!

Bros you are late on this one, na now you dey read scramble for Africa

theoldpretender:
It's not just blacks.Canada seems peaceful, till you read the long and sometimes violent history of its francophone and anglophone communities

The francophones in Canada originated from France and belgium with their mother tongue thus the friction. Cameroun's case is different. Its like telling Hausa from Nigeria that speak English to start killing their cousins in Niger republic because they use French to communicate.

E no make sense!

theoldpretender:
Crimea's case is different

1.There was no international court ruling

2.It was detached from Russia and added to Ukraine by Soviet leader Khrushchev in 1954 when both Russia and Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union

As for anglophone Cameroon.

1.It voted to rejoin Cameroon by a UN plebiscite in 1961.

2.It was not really part of Nigeria. When Germany lost world.war one, all its colonies were handed over to the British, French and South Africans. The Kamerum colony was divided between the Brit's and the French as trust territories

But they made the wrong move opting to join with Cameroun for fear of lesser representation in the squabbling eastern region at that time, now you have a francophone dominant government marginalizing them because they are "Anglophone". The absurdity of it all is what gets me. You are discriminating against your people based on their use of a 'foreigners" language.

When they say black people are a little slow upstairs these kinds of issues is what supports that assertion.

Nigeria should just annex the territory like Crimea, after all all them people from that area are related to Cross river and Akwa Ibom people, plus their pidgin na the same apart from their frequent use of the word "Massa" instead of "Oga"

DNA!

DNA!

DNA!

Hati13:
Thanks for some of the correction but Semitic originated in Ethiopia. Some other Semitic mixed with EthioSemitic but it wasn’t big and the bulk of West Eurasia DNA in Amara predate that by many thousands of years.

1. What to do you mean Semetic originated in Ethiopia. Semetic is a linguistic classification which has it origins in the levant so clarify with evidence how it originates from Ethiopia.

2. What do you mean by "some other Semitic mixed with EthioSemitic"?. What is an EthioSemitic?. Ethiopians are an ancient African peoples originating in the Eastern part of Africa with Cushitic roots. The Amhara and Tigray are a mix of these original groups and Semetic peoples from West Asia. The evidence is in the DNA. Oromo and Afar who are more to the interior though have some mix are less so than these aforementioned peoples.

Only the ones that speak French are evil. The english ones from Bamenda are our people.

TMKsouth:
South Africans discovered long ago what Kenyans and Ghanaians are just beginning to experience. Their economies are booming and increasingly attracting bad Nigerians. Soon Nairobi and Accra will be flooded with hundreds-of-thousands of your people claiming to develop those countries and "dominating" - as u like to claim. Already hijackings and kidnappings are on the increase in Ghana and Kenyans are complaining about drug dealing and obnoxiousness.

SAs been enduring this for 30 years now and have reached boiling point.

Who's economy is booming? Please stop the lies my friend. South Africa that has close to 35% unemployment rate and who's GDP did not grow past 2%.

The reason there are so many Yahoo Yahoo boys in SA is as follows

1. Your Visa entry laws are lax and because of your greed to boost tourist numbers and prop up your economy via this sector, it is hard for you to change or enact stringent immigration laws that will curtail these miscreants that enter your state.

2. You have massive corruption in your law enforcement departments who aid and abet these miscreants which makes it difficult for you to arrest, detain, process and deport law breakers.

3. You are signatory to the UN's refugee open border policies so are getting an influx of people coming in from Africa in general because SA's political and economic sector is stable.

As far as hijackings, rape and killings are concerned your people are the largest culprits of these activities and many a Nigerians are into Fraud and drug dealing activities.

Please tell the truth at all times, it is good for the soul

Shikena!

QnVee:
Native Americans were of So many differing tribes not just the Asians who crossed the Berring Land bridge.

Yes there were different waves of peoples that crossed over with obvious different phenotypes from the Eskimos to the Inca, Aztecs etc. Each of these groups are not of one phenotype but their genetics all tie to Asian and possible austrolesian immigrants.

QnVee:
Africans and African phenotypes were in the Americas way before the Asian arrival.

Prehistoric American people would most likely come from Melanesian and Austrolesian migrants than from Mainland Africa Their phenotypes do correlate with your cotemporary Africans but they are not of this stock having been separated between 60000 to 100000 from African peoples. Native American arrivals are dated at +- 11000 to 13000 years ago.

QnVee:
Different tribes were warring aghainst each other and the European invaders used this to their advantage by becoming allies with certain tribes to slaughter and enslave enemy tribes for reward. Some of the enslaved Natives aka Indians were even transported to Europe as well as the Caribbean. Africans were enslaved with Natives. Those natives were called Negros.

There are many peoples outside of Africa that have assumed the label of "negro" "negrito" or Negroid as it was used in scientific circles during the time. This does not mean they are African people anymore so than anyone else with different phenotypes outside of Africa. Most of these groups retained certain Africoid phenotypes and many of them also absorbed other genetic material from other Hominids that lived outside of Africa. They are not "contemporary Africans" on a genetic level.

Even if Europeans labeled some of these native populations as possessing negroid like phenotypes they are were not African people like me or my ancestors that remained in Africa to produce me.

QnVee:
Aborigines in any given place were of African phenotypes. Look it up!!

This is true but only in the sense that the first migrants out of Africa approximately 100,000 to 150,000 ago most likely resembled what Africans look like today, however physical changes of these Africans did occur depending on many factors and groups lost and gained certain phenotypes as well as an absorption of Neanderthal and Denisovan genes.

Other groups did not change quite rapidly and retained their "Africoid" features even though they lost all genetic elements of what makes up the African today.

Amujale:
Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain that, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint; indigenous Americans are said to have descend from the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Modern day African historians identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

You have posted this gibberish again from an outdated scholar who is popular in Afrocentric circles. Where is the genetic evidence to corroborate this theory. This is 2019 you know. The oldest human fossil found in the Americas date 11000 years clusters with Native American ancestry from Asia and Siberia.

There is no genetic evidence that relates Mande to Olmecs. You can dance around sertima's theories all you want, you will not find any information that proves it.

Prehistoric peoples in the Americas would most likely tie genetically to Polynesian or Melanisian peoples if they do not tie to Native Americans from Siberia.
Stop passing on Afro centrism as real science. You sound like those Hebrew Israelite crazies who keep claiming Hebrew ancestry yet once we bring up genetics and ask they to prove it, they begin to dance around rubbish historical theories.

if you want me to point you to the genetic study on 11,000 year old fossil DNA findings simply ask or search for it yourself. Google is your friend.

kayfra:
There is no such thing as Igbo or Ika DNA. We have the same genetic cluster in Southern Nigeria. You'd more variations with the same tribe and a lot of similarities across tribes. People jist throw DNA without the slightest clue

Point of correction my dear, there are in fact haplogroups that are distinct to certain ethnic groups in West Africa . Most of these DNA companies have collected data from each of these groups so much so that they are able to determine heritage from these specific groups using distinguishing subclades or specific mutations.

West African Men pass on specific variants of haplogroup Eb1b1a which is why we are able to determine if your male forbearers are indeed Ashanti or Yoruba.

It would therefore not be a hard task to determine at what frequency IKA males are descendant of "Igbo" or "Edo" men

Check out these interesting read on Male population differences in West Africa below

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295943796_Genetic_population_study_of_Y-chromosome_markers_in_Benin_and_Ivory_Coast_ethnic_groups

Autodidact1:
I'll ignore you from now on since you're not ready to learn.

No you will ignore me because your reasoning capacity is limited to folktales and a persistence to ignore the obvious.

You do not want to know the truth, you simply want to create a truth that suits a certain ethno-socio-political agenda.

Because a White South African assumes a new identity and creates a language that is a derivative of an original tongue, he cannot disconnect himself genetically and linguistically from his DUTCH ancestors. (This analogy might fly over you head but I wouldn't be shocked if it did)


You can self identify as an IKA man all day, that's your prerogative and if the "words" in your language are simply replacements by "Igbo words" then your DNA will not have been tampered with since the intrusion is simply linguistic and you will cluster closer to your Edo brethren to the West of you. I highly doubt this though, best case scenario, you are a hybrid people.

DNA does not LIE!

Take the test and end the mystery.

Amujale:
Without a shadow of doubt, there are distinct and undeniable found connection between the indigenous Americans with much of mainland African culture.

There are various theories to explain that, one of the leading theories is an African viewpoint; indigenous Americans are said to have descend from the Olmecs.

According to Jose Melar, the Olmecs are supposed to have migrated from Africa (is comprehensively addressed in the “Olmec alternative origin...” documents).

Modern day African historians identify Olmecs with the Mandé people.

DNA evidence does not corroborate this theory. If they were related to present day Mande, you would find genetic material that was still existent in the indigenous Americans today that would tie the two peoples together. Unless you believe the Mande sailed to the new world more than 5000 years ago?


The only proof presented in regards to this theory has been the statues that resemble Phenotypical representations of Africans. if that is the best then you have to convince me that these particular guys below are genetically related to a "cotemporary African" today.

Autodidact1:
Another dumb one. You seem to know very little or nothing about Ika language. Although Ika language is an IGBOID language

This statement just nullifies the rest of the rant below.

Autodidact1:
it has a very different intonation and the inflection is edoid. Do you know about Ika language formation? I doubt you don't. Ika language syntax is very different from other Igboid group. Talk about lexicon and I agree Ika lexics is very Igbo presently. and you actually didn't make any point your reply. If language shift doesn't have much with everything you listed up there, what then does it have something to do with? Common sense should tell you the first part of the language that language shift should attack is the lexicon.

The point here that you are trying to present is that in the past it was Edoid and got "replaced' by Igbo. Laughing in IKA language. How did it get replaced and by "whom". The best you can get out of your ranting here is that as Ika people you are a hybrid "race" of peoples between Igbo and Edo immigrants which does not negate my initial assertion, therefore if IGBO claim you, they are correct in doing so.

Autodidact1:
Within the last century, do you have any idea how many ika words that have been replaced with Igbo words? Even within the last few decades, I witnessed the death and replacement of hundreds of Ika words which I can list here if I have time. Most of these words are Edo/Edoid or exclusively Ika words which today nobody uses them in ikaland. The Igbo variant of it is now being used. I believe you're intelligent enough to understand some of the factors that is contributing to the shifting of Ika words from the original Edo/Ika variant to the Igbo variant.

The sentence formation and Lexicon is very Igbo so much so that an average Igbo person would probably understand about 50% of what an IKA person is saying and vice versa. Your language was not replaced it mutated from an original Igbo dialect that was isolated for a good period of time.

Autodidact1:
And you're referring to DNA evidence like you already have a DNA evidence at hand. Who's denying any relationship between Ika and Igbo? Yoruba, Edo, Igala and Igbo are from the same parent so what exactly is your point here?

The onus is not on me to prove you descend from direct Igbo migrants or settlers but for you to disprove it. My assertions are based on comparisons to other such phenomena in Africa and a probability of likely hood.

All Southern Nigerians are likely related to each other genetically. The point is to prove that the IKA are related to the Igbo far more so than any other surrounding group in the area including Edo peoples. Tell your people to take the tests so we can resolve this issue. Stop telling us about folktales your old people have been passing around as origin stories.

Autodidact1:
So I should discard my folktales (which are basically Edo based stories of Ogiso and Adhuaran/Aruans giant sons of Ogiso) and other ancient factors and dwell solely on the language factors which I'm sure you know nothing about? And how ignorant you appear here still talking about DNA. Do you think an Agbor man from a certain quarter would have exactly the same DNA with another from a different quarter? Height of ignorance.

Yes, you should because there are now more sophisticated and modern methods of determining origins outside of folktales or better stil reexamine them using new information that is obtainable. Linguistics is just one indicator, DNA is indisputable.

As regards the single Agbor man's DNA results, well it will depend on his place of immediate origin, his family origins etc, however if you take a general DNA sample of all or most Agbor men there will be a definitive cluster of genetic relationship enough to determine with certainty their affiliation or non affiliations with groups around them.

DNA is like that it can trace how close or far away your ancestors are, but unfortunately you will continue with this socio-political commentary about your identity because you really deep down inside do not want to know the truth.

Self determination does not require fabrications of origins.



We are Ika people. We know our history and where each clan came from. Each clan knows where the Ogbes that makes up the clan came from and each ogbe know the origin of all the Idumus and Ebons that makes up that Idumu.[/quote]

OLAADEGBU:
Nigeria, Fulani-Yoruba

There is a lot of Cameroonian ancestry in Igbos, while both Igbo and Yoruba often have Benin ancestry with more in Yorubas.

Read more: http://newsrescue.com/yoruba-are-99-adangbe-study/#ixzz4zqKxIN00

It is not unusual for the Igbo to be closely linked to Ethnic groups to their West more so than their EAST, seeing that migratory Patterns probably moved somewhere from North Central Africa into the West and then down South via the Bantu expansions. IGbo and groups to their West even look more phenotypically similar to groups in Cameroon and the Congo.


Yoruba have probably been in the West longer than Igbo judging from their closer genetic, cultural and linguistic ties to their Eastern neighbours that speak Gbe languages so the genetics does correlate with linguistic and cultural similarities