Obviously what was actually being discussed in this thread is the ultimate origin of certain types of soup, not the origin of the different ethnic variants/versions of those types of soup. I don't think one can pin down a specific origin for certain really popular ones.

^
He's not Bini. He's Apoi, as he stated himself in this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/704736/omoyele-sowore-owner-sahara-reporters/2#10210651

foxxi4real: People, Omoyele Sowore is an Ijaw man. take it like that.

Let me tell you a bit about the Apoi people. Many centuries ago, the migrated from a place in Bayelsa state and finally settled in Toru-Abukuba ( now Sabomi - sound Ijawish I guess) in Ese-Odo LGA in Ondo State. The Royal family later moved to Oboro and founded other towns including Igbekebo, Kiribo (Sowore's town), Oju Ala, Igbotu, Igbobini, Inikorogha (sounds Ijawish too I guess) and others.
They settled close to the Ilajes, Ikales and the Ijebus who were Yoruba speaking, because of their lost stay together, they intermarried heavily and slowly they began to lost their original Ijaw language. Presently, the Apoi speak Yoruba (the Ikale dialect), they NO MORE speak Ijaw. Just before lately, they title of their king was even 'Oba" until recently when they returned their original "Kalasuwe" (Kalasuo or Kalasue) title.

Consequently, Sowore is an Apoi (of Ijaw ancestry). If you call him a Yoruba man fine (from his names), if you call him an Ijaw man, fine (from his roots).

I am an Apoi (from Oboro) too, a blue-blood one for that matter, so I know what I am talking.

In conclusion, considering that the Yorubas claimed to have migrated from Mecca (Makkah), can we still refer to them as Makkans? Can we also refer to the Lagosians as Edos? (since they actually came from Benin). On this premise, I will like to conclude that the Apoi people can be seen as "Apoi" people. Because of the language they speak and their geographical location, if they are called Yorubas, there shouldn't be any problem. But definitely they are NOT Igbo or Hausa.

It's a thread called "Benin Art and Architecture" and it's on page 1 of the culture section. It's thread showing some of the past art of the kingdom, plus a few surviving pictures and images of buildings in the traditional style.

I didn't suggest was dating a Fulani. Other posters in the thread have done that though. I think she can be a "fan" of the Fulanis without dating any of them, I just disagreed with her views and I wondered if maybe she had some Fulani ancestry and if she possibly had a bias of some sort because of that.

I wouldn't start a thread like that about Benin because it would probably be viewed as some sort of attempt at boasting or something. There are books which touch on that issue (influence) though. I did, however, start a thread on the art of Benin.

And I apologize for the insults and my lack of civility in the post above toward you and for any negative comments toward the Fulani in general - it seemed to me as if you went out of your way to make certain denigrating remarks about certain groups so I guess I got into a more combative/aggressive mindset when writing, but that's not really an excuse for my tone or words. For that, I'm sorry.

I meant to write "There seemed to be some idea in the air at both places that the rulers there were relatives." there above. Minor typo, but if I edit the post the spambot will probably take action. Also, on the Nupe, it should read "they might not want to waste time invading areas that aren't really economically significant to them" where "them" refers to Benin.

AdoZazzau:

Mr PhysicsQED, You opened with this quote and you finished with a lecture on Bini's much hyped and excessively praised history.

Let me share with you that Bini's glory today is the product of European writings. Much of these writings occured in an era in which the Europeans were obsessed with planting their tongue across the globe so it was an age of romanticized style of writing. Europeans exagerrated their impressions of encounters with natives. If they see something good they called it the most beautiful, and if they see something fair they described it as the worst of any encounter any human should ever be suffered with. This is how those who pioneered African exploration and wrote about it documented the records. The writers behind them used these records to further their own goals and interests in Africa. There were writers who never set foot in places they wrote about and there were writers who passed through a place and wrote as if they spent half their lifetime in it. Europeans distorted the records big time and this was done all over Africa. For people who had no independent written record of their own, like the Binis, of course, these hyped accounts is sweet in your ears. Your neighbors read what Europeans wrote about you and since all you forest people view the white man as a sacred being whose account must not be challenged, your status as a formidable kingdom is further elevated. If the hyped account of your glory match with your military prowess then you should have conquered the Yoruba seat of power or the Nupe seat of power. These were two neighboring powers to you. Gun or no gun, your romanticized kingdom would have been decimated if Fulani went into the forests.

I don't think you're very bright based on your first comment on this thread, but I'll attempt to reason with you anyway.

1. I didn't quote any "romanticized writings" from any Europeans about Benin. When I mentioned the British I was actually alluding to the writings of commander Bacon of the British expedition that conquered Benin on the issue of the use of guns by the Bini (he specifically claimed they didn't use any arrows and he described the volleys of the gun fire from the Bini at numerous points of his writing) and I was referring to the writings of other people who were actually there besides him, but anyone who has any familiarity with Bacon's writings on Benin knows that they are generally extremely negative about the Bini. It is just really naive or plain dumb to think that there are no negative writings or statements about Benin from Europeans when there are several - people simply gave their opinions and naturally, some are going to have a good opinion of certain things and some are going to have a bad opinion of certain things. Even one of the first people to comment on Benin, Duarte Pacheco Pereira, had some very negative things to say about the place, so why would anyone think that the writings of Europeans on Benin, even when some of these writings have negative statements about Benin - and even some of the supposedly "positive" writings on Benin sometimes contain negative statements - are somehow automatically "sweet in my ears"? This is just a silly assumption.

Your claim that "Europeans exagerrated their impressions of encounters with natives. If they see something good they called it the most beautiful, and if they see something fair they described it as the worst of any encounter any human should ever be suffered with" is simply not true because that does not apply to all the writers. I doubt that you've actually read much of these writings that you're referring to, otherwise you would know that it's not that hard to spot exaggeration. Furthermore, many of those sources that are detailed qualify their criticisms or praises of things by going into specifics and don't usually just lean wildly towards one extreme or another. At this point you're just making stuff up.

Then you say: "The writers behind them used these records to further their own goals and interests in Africa. There were writers who never set foot in places they wrote about and there were writers who passed through a place and wrote as if they spent half their lifetime in it. Europeans distorted the records big time and this was done all over Africa."

And yet you seem to be too lazy to cite numerous specific instances of what you're talking about (the names of the authors, what they claimed, and how exactly they were furthering their own goals and interests with what they claimed etc.). It's not news to anyone who has read any European explorers' accounts that they simply sometimes wrote wrong or incorrect information so you're not saying anything profound here, but it's silly to think that information about Benin or even the reputation of Benin or some other states came only from European explorers' writings. It sometimes came from other African peoples who had had interactions with Benin other African states in the past. The claims about Benin's influence or significance/capabilities in the past don't just come from European explorers' writings, but also from native/African sources as well.

You make a point to say: "For people who had no independent written record of their own like the Binis"

Yes, the Bini had no independent written record of their own, but what was the independent written record of the Fulanis, prior to adopting the Arabic script? Also, where were the Fulanis at before settling in Futa Jallon and what were they doing there (Futa Jallon) from the earliest times they settled there (which is when, exactly?) to their dispersal to other parts of Africa, according to the all-knowing supposed contemporary Fulani written records of those periods? Go into detail here when answering that, if you can. In reality, you guys wrote down your histories in recent centuries, many many centuries after much earlier events in your societies had already happened. So in what sense were you guys keeping detailed records of anything while it was happening except in recent centuries after the later jihads? Or did you guys simply have no significant history before these jihads?

And to this day, nobody knows what exactly the real ancient origins and history of the Fulani are (for example, what exact North African ethnic groups you mixed slightly with in the past, or when exactly you left your homelands to settle in other places) because you guys didn't leave real detailed records of these things, despite all the real and imagined/exaggerated scholarly activity and the adoption of an Arabic written script (an Ajami script). People were still trying to figure out whether the Fula originate from North Africa or West Africa until recently and they had to resort to genetics to resolve that, but nothing you all wrote down about your original homeland or origins or earliest history is available. At best all we have are bizarre claims of migration from the Middle East in some very late accounts, or nothing at all. And what's more, scholars that try to figure out what was going on in the Fulo state (in the Niger Valley region) in the 16th century or in "medieval" times generally have to rely on the writings of Portuguese and other Europeans or on the writings of Arabs or North Africans because you people didn't write anything then. There's no contemporary record of what you guys were doing in the Fulo state that actually comes from your people, because you didn't write anything about that at the time it was happening. There is no coherent "Fulani history" that traces your full history from antiquity to the present using contemporary Fulani written records from antiquity to the present because you guys simply didn't write anything on your history for many centuries, and only started the "record-keeping" stuff in recent centuries.

You've implied (by your reference to the written record and the Binis) that there's much significance to your people's eventual use of the script of the Arabs (whose ideology and religion is so sacred to you, as directly evidenced by your history), as far as having records of history, yet there is nothing in the 15th century (as an example of just one earlier century, but one could go further back still) literature that is actually from the Fulanis - nothing - that details the history of your people or even what you guys were doing at the time or in earlier centuries. You bring up the issue of keeping written records, yet all people can find from you guys as far as real history is concerned are things written in the early to mid 1800s or the 1900s, many many centuries after your group had already been existing and settled down, and even then some of these writings aren't necessarily without error and distortion (such as fantastical claims of origin from the Middle East of some groups). And keep in mind that when I write this, I don't want to read anything back from you about the history of the Hausa or their traditions or whatever they wrote about their early history or see it mentioned by you as if it had even the slightest bit of relevance to what I'm saying. I'm talking about the Fulani specifically. Cite the evidence for these supposed detailed written records of the Fulani from ancient times (not a time as late as the freaking 1800s - which was right before the colonial period - even something from only as far back as 1500 AD would be half-decent) that explain their history and origins and what they were doing and what they had been doing then.

It's also strange to think that "all you forest people view the white man as a sacred being whose account must not be challenged." Have you read any African history written by the professional scholars and historians from these people in the south that you call "forest people"? European assumptions, misinterpretations, etc. are routinely challenged in those writings. The fact that European writers and observers sometimes misinterpreted or misunderstood things that they saw and heard and could not always be relied on is something that has been pointed out in multiple publications by scholars from these groups.

In the case of the Bini specifically, are you silly enough to think the Binis accept every claim put forward by European writers (past or present) about Benin? There are "negative' things, apparently "neutral" things, and "positive" things written about Benin in European writings but there are also certain things that are just inaccurate about the culture or history or practices of the people in some writings. That's just one of the reasons why Binis wrote their own histories later on and still don't just blindly accept all the claims in European writings (past and present).

2. I don't understand the last bit about conquering "Yoruba seat of power" (I assume you mean Oyo). Has it occurred to you that they might not have had an interest in even attempting to do so for cultural/historical reasons? The rulers of Benin believed - presumably with good reason - that they had a direct relationship with the rulers at the "Yoruba seat of power" and the rulers of the "Yoruba seat of power" (Oyo) seemed to basically think the same thing. There seemed to be some idea in the air at both places that the were rulers there were relatives.

And as for the "Nupe seat of power" has it occurred to you that maybe part of the motivation for Benin's wars was economic based or trade related, rather than being blind fanatical religious expansion (like some groups)? If they were expanding for control of trade routes or other economic reasons, they might not want to waste time invading areas that aren't really economically significant but they also might not have wanted to invade and destabilize areas that supply them with things from much further off areas that they don't have direct access to themselves.

But on Nupe, the Fulani didn't even have the guts to take the place directly when it actually had some power - they exploited an ongoing civil war between the Muslim pretender to the Nupe throne and the pagan pretender to the Nupe throne, and after some really weaselly political scheming and manipulation and some further deception, they were later able to get control of the place through some very minor military engagements. The so called "conquest" was of a half-wrecked kingdom which had already been torn apart by civil war and which they turned against itself by exploiting religious divides and ongoing power struggles in the kingdom itself. Similarly, the Fulani didn't conquer the "Yoruba seat of power" through a direct military confrontation either. They exploited a civil war between Ilorin and Oyo (Ilorin was part of Oyo, but broke away to become independent), and employed deception and the same minor military engagements to achieve the takeover of Ilorin after Ilorin and its Yoruba allies had defeated Oyo. When the Fulanis tried to invade Ibadan (a direct military conflict), they simply lost. Ahmadu Bello (the Sardauna) mentioned this in his autobiography, My Life, when he mentioned how a "Fulani column" penetrated "south of Ibadan" but then the tide of battle turned and then they made no progress whatsoever so a stalemate with the Yoruba set in for decades (this is in his autobiography, I'm paraphrasing, but if I had it with me I would post the exact quote).

Anyway, Benin defeated Igala when it was powerful, and Nupe was presumably tributary to this Igala state (or at least they used to claim this in their traditions) back when it was powerful, so I hardly see where you're getting this idea of Benin not taking on any other powerful state in the area. You're worrying about why Benin didn't take on Nupe, yet they (Benin) defeated the Igala - a state that the Nupes claimed (or at least they used to claim this in the past, don't know how much they still claim it now) they were tributary to when it was powerful. The Fulani couldn't even conquer other places in the Middle Belt and they had to use deception, political scheming, and the exploitation of an ongoing civil war to take over Nupe, and I'm supposed to buy into this silly myth of martial supremacy? I repeat that the Fulanis would have just been riddled with bullets and totally decimated while trying to conquer what they couldn't conquer.

Abiyamọ: This is hilarious! Just what I needed, a comic relief

But you did like the post. It's strange to see that you really agreed with what he wrote, but of course you're entitled to your own opinion, no matter how bizarre it may seem to others.

^
Whatever dude. I don't care about that stuff like you do, so go rant to someone else about it.

shymexx: Just as Isale_gan2 is Igbo but she has been claiming Yoruba for time.

I doubt that though. I think if you skimmed through most of her post history you'd see that that's highly unlikely.

Somalia troll, Fulanis intermarried with people from many of the groups that they came into persistent contact with, both in the Niger Valley region and in other places like Nigeria, provided the person was Muslim. Kwara state in Nigeria is just one of several examples of this. Anyway, even if what you posted was really true (it doesn't seem to be borne out by reality), it's not what I asked about.

@ , I see that you actually liked AdoZazzau's "Fulani master race" post. I saw your username as the only username under the "viewing this topic" list, not long after he made that post, then soon after your name was on the viewing list, there was 1 like for his post. Are you a Yoruba Muslim from somewhere in Kwara who has heavy Fulani roots/ancestry or something? Or Did a Fulani man save your whole family? What's with this distorted perception of the Fulanis?

I don't have anything against the Fulanis, except for their seeming unwillingness to try to rein in and control the violent nomadic pastoralists among them, and I can certainly see how someone could be a fan of their unique culture or history. Now, if there were really such great evidence for the dubious claim this thread is centered around, I might actually accept it, and I think that some other people would as well, but so far, it seems like only you and the two Fulani posters on this thread actually believe the claim.

AdoZazzau: We should give credit where its due. Fulanis are the supreme race in WestAfrica. Politically, militarily, academically, economically, agriculturally, no other tribe or race of people in West Africa has accomplished as the Fulanis have.

^^
This is what excessive praise and undeserved hype does for some people who already have a distorted perception of things. The idea/claim of this thread is really too strange for me to bother addressing in detail, but I advise people who believe stuff like this above to simply pick up some books and get some real perspective.

The Great Mandinkas, their brothers the Wolofs, the fearsome Hausa States,were all routed and subdued by Fulani. Fulani have ruled in all the West Afrivan countries, whether anglophone or francophone. Here in Nigeria, except for Yoruba and Kanuri, evrryone they came in contact with was easily subdued. Binis were lucky the Fulani onslaught was repulsed by Yoruba, they would have been history like the Hausas.

The Fulanis were repeatedly defeated by states like Mali that surrounded their heartland. They were simply never a dominant force in their own wider home region until long after more powerful states had declined in power. Mali (the empire of the Mandinka people) was not really defeated by the Fula, but by a fellow Mande speaking group, the Bamana, and they were only bested by the Bamana after their power had declined from what it had been following numerous conflicts with other groups and internal conflicts. It's easy to claim to have bested a group such as the Mandinka that were more powerful than your own group, by referring to a conquest of a less powerful state (Bamana) that happened long after Mandinka power had already declined, but that doesn't mean anyone will actually believe the claim. The Wolof were conquered by the French. Or are the French now being claimed as Fulani too?

The claim on Benin is funny. Are you geographically challenged? Yoruba is and was not between the Fulani and Benin, so talk about being saved from the same fate as the Hausas because of that is silly. The Fulanis had a direct route south to Benin through Nupe, but they didn't attempt to conquer Benin itself after they (Fulanis) had gained control of Nupe, even though they had decades to try it (from 1836 onwards). Maybe they might have realized that their horsemen were generally useless in the rainforest area and especially against people armed with guns. Or maybe it was the fact that they were unable to conquer places in the Middle Belt area that were weaker than Benin so they couldn't even contemplate going further directly south. Or maybe it was both. Also, the conflict between Benin and the British that resulted in the conquest of Benin was fought almost entirely with guns (on both sides, although the British were much better equipped), as attested to by the British themselves, and Benin produced some of its own guns locally. The Fulani of the Sokoto Caliphate were still almost entirely using bows, arrows, swords and spears, even up to the time of their conquest by the British. If they had tried invading Benin, the Fulanis probably would have been shot dead off their horses while stumbling around stup1d and lost in the forests.

Bororojo:

You are soo silly...mande are an Ethno-Linguistic group, Just like Bantu, Dravadian, Germanics and celts....But you probably dont realize that.... they are npt a monolithic group like Yoruba or Fulani or Kikuyu...do you get it??

lol, so Fulanis aren't a heterogeneous group now? Even when every person with a half a drop of Fulani blood in them seems to be claimed as Fulani? The same Fulani that are widely described as heterogeneous are now "monolithic"? What a joke.

Fulanis are more Influential, Numerous and well known than Mandenka, or Bambara, etc.

from Issa Hayatou, to Ahijo to Yar'Adua to Macky Sall to Dan Fodio to Modibbo Adama, to Umar Tall.... even here within Nigeria i can count 4 governors off my fingers who are fulano, from Murtala Nyako to Isa Yuguda.
Fulanis make good Music, are good statesmen and Politicians, are good nomads, are great at Business {Fulanis dominate the business sphere in Guinea and Sierra Leone}, are good farmers, Are Kings and Emperors, ........

The Mande speaking people founded Gao, ancient Ghana, and Mali. Really, that should end the discussion right there. I really shouldn't have to elaborate on the significance of that and how that makes them more influential, so if you have any questions, hit the books.

Bororojo:

The fact that you have your own personal problems with the Fulbe doesn't make us any less important....

See How European Explorers into Africa described the Fulani:



........ the Yoruba, Edo, Mande et all, were all there as at the time that statement was made.

Dude, leave the Edo out of this. I've been watching this bizarre spectacle of a thread for a while, but don't make me descend on this thread with negative quotes about the Fulanis from Europeans. Anybody can find a European explorer who thought this or that about some group, it doesn't mean that their statement about the personal attributes of that African group is necessarily true. And do you actually think all the quotes about Fulanis from European writers are positive? I can assure you that this is not the case.

Abiyamọ: Thank you o, that is what I am looking forward to seeing, a similar list of any other ethnic group and I will withdraw my assertion.

I don't really have the time to do something like that nor do I have sufficient interest in the issue to do so, but I will say that I think that even in the region of West Africa that Fulanis are from there is a more influential group - the Mande. I personally think Mande-speaking people are more influential overall, especially when past history and influence outside of Africa is taken into account. If someone took the time to assemble a list of prominent Mande-speaking people from the past and present, it would definitely be better than that list in the opening post. But like I said, the issue isn't interesting enough to me personally to warrant that kind of effort.

Abiyamọ: I can't put all the details here, it says post too long. Please check the link.

Thanks, I missed that. It's a nice article.

Abiyamọ: But Sir, you will agree with me that Dangote, a Fulani, exerts the greatest individual influence on the Nigerian economy which is virtually under his grips

Apparently his "Fulani-ness" is slight and he's mostly Hausa: https://www.nairaland.com/102638/aliko-dangote-started-out-like#9278616

Yes the Fulanis have had some influence in the western part of the continent (some of it 'good', some of it 'bad' in some people's view), but they have had little to no real/significant influence outside of that area, and the thread title seems like an exaggeration. Also, a list that is just as impressive (or more impressive) of prominent people like the list in the opening post could be assembled for pretty much any other African linguistic group with a large population (in the tens of millions) if anyone bothered to take the time to do so.

Nice thread, but I did expect more details and information, like we see in most of your other posts.

PAGAN 9JA:



so you think that trash by basil davidson and martin bernal is GROUNDBREAKING!!! LMFAOOO!!!
The African scholars were interested in their own histories, not digging up someone elses histories. This is why they have more reliable sources, since they concentrated on certain points which those akatas were incapable of doing, mostly biblically educated nutcases. WTF? Are you referring to the BAntu migrations? THose didnt take place from Egypt, you deluded man! THere is fossil evidence from the KEnyan/Tanzanyan BAsins that predate evolution itself. The foreign invasions by the Arabs is of no significance. It took place only as far as the Northern Sahel and the MAghreb. It had no displacing effect on the current Tribal Populations of Nigeria, except maybe certian groups of Fula.

STOP FOOLING YOURSELF.

Davidson did not write "trash." You should read some of his books before commenting on them. I think you may have assumed he was a hard core hyper-diffusionist or something because of the fact that Rossike mentioned him, but he wasn't.

Bernal is not really a historian of Africa, but just someone who put forward a particular theory about there being much more non-European influence on ancient Greece than was usually acknowledged - a view he is certainly not alone in holding - and although he didn't marshal up enough direct evidence for all his claims, he made some interesting and plausible arguments for some of them. At the time his book was first published there was even less acknowledgement of significant non-European influence on ancient Greece than there is now, so it met with some additional controversy beyond what was merited by the contents of the books themselves, but the debate over his work is actually still ongoing, and it's certainly not the case that the basic idea of his thesis (of significant Afroasiatic influence on the Mediterranean) is really so strange or implausible.

Rossikk:

None of these men has written any groundbreaking books on ancient African history. How many of them have even gone beyond Nigeria in their research and works? How many of them researched Egypt, Nubia, Kush, Kerma, and the Nile Valley civilizations? African history is not just about Yoruba, Igbo, Bini, starting from the 1800s. This is the period the likes of Kenneth Dike, Michael Crowder and co deal with. Did they research the great African migrations from north to south thousands of years ago following the desertification of the Sahara and foreign invasions culminating in the Arab invasions of the 7th century? Nope. But the people you call ''akata historians'' go the whole hog in African history, to the very beginnings, and do not limit themselves to Nigeria or to the 17th century onwards like your sources. Your sources are EXTREMELY LIMITED in the scope and depth of African history they cover This is why we cannot name a single work by any of them that has any real following.

Cheikh Anta Diop, author of The African Origin of Civilization was a Senegalese historian by the way, and he went ALL THE WAY BACK and defended his findings before his global peers at UNESCO in 1974. His findings based on groundbreaking evidence his peers were unable to dispute, were that the Ancient Egyptians were black Africans and that any history of Africa was incomplete without linking it to the great civilization of EGYPT.

You need to rid yourself of the arrogance of a foool. You are nowhere near as well-read as you seem to think you are. Insulting Basil Davidson and Martin Bernal while propping up your upstart, unknown local champion historians?

Ridiculous. As for the African migrations, there were several, and the Arab one was only the last. Prior to that there were Greek, Roman, and Assyrian invasions. These always led to southward migrations by African populations. Go and read Olumide Lucas. This has been the most enlightened Nigerian historical chronicler in my view. He wrote The Religion of the Yorubas. In that book, he traces the Yorubas' history straight to ancient Egypt, using a variety of proofs comprising oral and written history, artefacts, and linguistics. He even found evidence of hieroglyphs in Yorubaland. There is a lot you need to learn..

Some of the authors mentioned by the poster Ola Johnson have published classic works on African history and all of them have published important work on African history. And both Basil Davidson (in several of his books) and Cheikh Anta Diop (in his book Precolonial Black Africa), have cited work by some of those scholars.

The verses about freshwater vs. saltwater "seas" seem to just be about the two groups of water being kept separate (apparently by God's will) when in large quantities ('seas'), not about freshwater and saltwater never being able to mix or being unable to mix even when both quantities are small. The use of the term "barrier" could be a reference to a salt-wedge estuary that some people noticed/discovered back then (see http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/media/supp_estuar05a_wedge.html for a summary of salt-wedge estuaries) and maybe those people assumed that the "barrier" (a boundary, really) observed at this type of estuary was how fresh water "seas" stayed separate from salt water "seas", or it could just have been a guess without doing any investigation.

isale_gan2:

Those guys are NOT Yorubas! PhysicsPHD/QED/NFT/OPP, my Bini hubby, please don't look for my trouble.

The English bastards were cunning enough to use their conscripted forces from outside the Nigerian area.

Both groups were used during the invasion, although the Hausas were predominant among the African troops. There were also significant numbers of Yorubas that fought alongside the Ologbosere, Ebohon, and Oviawe in the resistance after the conquest. This is covered in some books (such as Robert Home's book City of Blood Revisited: A New Look at the Benin Expedition of 1897).

bokohalal:

Most likely members of the Hausa Constabulary that the British used to bully stubborn Nigerian natives.

They could be Hausas or they could be Yorubas from the Lagos colony. Both were used in the invasion.

.

On the Obaseki issue raised by the OP, there are books and articles which give more detailed accounts of what happened (such as Philip Igbafe's book The Nemesis of Power), but I'll summarize some of what I know as far as Obaseki and Oba Ovonramwen. Anyone who knows more can correct anything they're certain that I got wrong, and also add their own information.

Agho Obaseki did not betray Oba Ovonramwen as far as I know. Before the invasion, and even while Oba Ovonramwen was still a prince, Agho and the Oba were close, and after Oba Ovonramwen became king, he made Agho a member of the Iweguae society in the palace (a palace society composed of the Oba's personal attendants) by creating the new title of Obaseki. After the British invasion and the occupation of Benin City, when the Oba and several of his followers were still in the forests and keeping away from the occupied capital city, Agho Obaseki surrendered to the British. Agho Obaseki and a few other chiefs who had already surrendered repeatedly sent messengers to find and contact the Oba to plead with him to surrender and give himself up. Eventually he did, and he (Oba Ovonramwen) came back into the city voluntarily with several of his wives and a large group of people following him, and surrendered. After the trial and Oba Ovonramwen's deportation to Calabar, Agho Obaseki was chosen by the British as one of several chiefs who would act as "paramount chiefs" over the Bini in the administrative system the British set up. Later, because of his personal qualities such as his intelligence and cooperativeness, they made him vice president (initially the British vice consul was president) and eventually president of the "Benin Native Council" that they set up, and he came to have a lot of influence and power.

In the period between Oba Ovonramwen's exile and the restoration of the monarchy under Oba Eweka II, the British administrators came to have a high opinion of Agho Obaseki as a native administrator. Before the death of Oba Ovonramwen, the colonial system of "paramount chiefs" had already become unpopular and the people running it were viewed as somewhat corrupt and inefficient, so the system was viewed unfavorably by the people, and discussions about restoring the monarchy started to take place. When the British decided to concede to the idea of restoring the monarchy (while Oba Ovonramwen was still alive), there was serious consideration of Agho Obaseki being made Oba by the British. What Obaseki's view on possibly becoming Oba was isn't all that clear but apparently he rejected the idea (though there are differing accounts - one account suggests that Obaseki really was trying to become Oba, and that the Ezomo (who was his relative) at the time pledged his support for the idea).

Eventually, in 1914, Oba Ovonramwen passed away in Calabar, and not long after, the Iyase from Oba Ovonramwen's reign, Okizi, passed away. The British conceded to the restoration of the monarchy as had been discussed before the death of Oba Ovonramwen, and prince Aiguobasimwin acceded to the throne as Oba Eweka II a few months after Oba Ovonramwen's death. Apparently, Oba Eweka II was already opposed to Agho Obaseki even when he was a prince, but installed him as Iyase anyway. Later, there were some significant disagreements between Oba Eweka II and his Iyase, Agho Obaseki, and they didn't really get along. This tension between Oba Eweka II and his Iyase, and the fact that there was serious talk of Agho Obaseki possibly being made a king over the Bini when Oba Ovonramwen was in exile, might be the source of the idea of a "betrayal." But as far as I can tell there was no actual betrayal during the invasion.


On the hats, Oba Ovonramwen was in exile in Calabar, and some of the royalty there wear/wore hats based on or inspired by European styles, so it is probably a style he adopted from his hosts while in exile. Lagos has had contact with European traders and sailors for centuries, so the hat that the Oba of Lagos is wearing in that picture is most likely to be inspired by one of those contacts with Europeans from the past, although I don't know what the significance of the symbols is on the hats worn by either the Oba of Benin or the Oba of Lagos in those pictures. Those symbols in both pictures might be a combination of European and African designs superimposed on a European style hat. As for the "star of David" stuff, hexagrams or six-pointed stars aren't a visual motif that is exclusive to Hebrews. Anyone can use them and other peoples have used them in the past.

On the Benin-Yoruba thing, you guys should give that a rest, the issue has become somewhat stale after being mentioned too many times.

No disrespect to Mr. Imasuen, but I think that if a historical event of that much importance is going to be covered by him in a film, he should make a deliberate effort to step up the quality of his work by several notches. I've seen parts of some of his other movies and I wasn't really impressed - but then again maybe I've been spoiled by Hollywood.

DerideGull:

Whatsup Physics? Thanks for the information.

Hey, no problem. Just thought I should mention it.

ACM10:

Prof. Physics, where have you been? We missed your contribution here. Whether I read negative or positive connotation into the word "celebrated storyteller", that fact remains that its content of use stripped Achebe of his contribution to intellectual development. It is clear to the discerning mind the message Soyinka passed.

I've just been staying away from the politics section in most of my recent posts. And no I'm not a prof yet. That's still some years away if I decide to stay in academia.

I think that in the context in which it was used, that phrase (celebrated storyteller) was not really intended to be derisive, but I see how other people can have other interpretations.

ACM10:

I know that I may be venturing into your field. But I think that got the dates muddled in your head. Einstein won his Nobel prize in 1922 "for his services to Theoretical Physics". By that time he was yet to complete his work on Brownian motion which was published in 1926. Your postulation that there was no definite proof of the relation of mass and energy at that time might be a valid reason why he was not awarded the prize.

Well, actually, the crucial work on Brownian motion was first published in 1905. Einstein also published versions of his work where multiple research articles were combined into a single book or the basic significance of some of his discoveries were summarized for a general audience in a single book after the original research had been done. That particular book (a 1926 English translation of a book published in German in 1922) is a compilation of different publications of Einstein's from 1905 to 1908 on Brownian motion.

Interesting. And yeah, some of the masks are quite disturbing looking.