₦airaland Forum

,

ezeagu:
I have to laugh at that a little. The Igbo and Yoruba nations are at least 2000 years older than the word 'Edo'. The Edo people themselves trace their lineage back to the Yoruba and Ile-Ife is significantly involved in Edo kingship. The Igbo on the other hand have evidence of their existence dating back 6000 years ago, that's over 5000 years before the Benin Kingdom sprang out of the Yoruba. Some of the Hausa Fulani weren't even here 300 years ago, let alone having an Edo root, they don't even have Edo influence. Nigeria is a state made by the British, nothing more.

I don't know what amazonia was talking about before, that sounded a little loony( lol, what is "Arewa-Edo"?). But the above is simply not correct. Putting aside Benin, which was ruled by Ogisos before the hotly contested Ile-Ife- Benin connection, the Edo people themselves don't originate from Yoruba and couldn't have because of the extreme dissimilarity of the Edo language compared with those languages that actually are Yoruboid and did branch of from Yoruba, such as Itsekiri. Just as the Idoma and Igala don't originate from Igbos, but probably share a common origin with them, Edo's actual lineage isn't from Yoruba, nor their language. To gain some objective perspective on this read "The Benin Kingdom and the Edo-Speaking Peoples of South-Western Nigeria" by Ray Bradbury.

This article should also give you some insight:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/715028?seq=2

There are similarities with the Yoruba in terms of religion and certain words, but when one asserts something like Edos branched off from Yorubas, one is also necessarily stating that Urhobos and Isokos branched off from Yoruba, since Urhobos and Edos almost certainly share the same origin, which just sounds ridiculous. Anyway, I don't think you've met many Edos. The average Yorubas have very distinct features unique to that ethnicity, just like Igbos, and I with a few exceptions, I would have a hard time confusing the Edos and Yorubas as being of exactly the same stock.

Remarkable thread. Very moving stories @ lindabong and mutter.

The march to the sea continues.

This is the greatest thread ever. I can't stop laughing.

Whatever article being quoted is a bit inaccurate. "Oyibo", as used by other Nigerian tribes besides Yorubas or Igbos. most likely comes from the Yoruba language, and it is extremely unlikely that it has to do with the Igbo ethnic group, although you might read differently on wikipedia and other sites where people can just make up stuff. The writer of that article should have done their homework.

lol@ the black Israelite claims. That stuff has been heavily debunked. Anyways even a mild familiarity with actual Jewish history would show there is far too much depth in that culture for them to be pretending or impersonating anything,

Onlytruth:
Are you asking us? I think it is time that YOU answer the question. In the thread on "the true extent of alaigbo", you basically painted yourself and your edo people as staunch "one nigerianists".
You would understand if I become baffled by these questions you are asking here.
BTW, for how long have we asked those questions? I wasn't born by then, but I guess these questions started in 1960 or even earlier.

My question to you now is this: What is YOUR best strategy for achieving the nation of your dreams? What needs to change in Nigeria?

Onlytruth:
@PhysicsQED

I'm still waiting for answers to my questions.

Did you post this and run away? 

You see why I told you that the truth will not be found in your posturings at all.

I maintained that the key to successful Igbo secession from Nigeria is unearthing the real reasons behind your (and some minority) opposition to Biafra or any Igbo only country. Why you support one Nigeria without any logical reasons.

Onlytruth, I already explained that I don't have any opposition to Biafra, although you can keep twisting my stance to suit your agenda if you need to. You and some other posters in that thread had a great deal of misinformation concerning the relationship between minorities and Biafra based on assumptions and conjecture and I corrected them. What I stated is that I preferred a possible powerhouse to mid-level players in the international scheme of things for reasons already spelled out very clearly in that thread. I also made it clear that the only real reason some minorities, including Edos, but excluding some Ogoni or Ijaw, don't ask for secession is the desire to be part of a country which has some greater clout, and the lack of any marginalization  of them or tragedy inflicted upon them by the Nigerian state is the other reason. Obviously for Igbos the marginalization and the tragedy outweigh the other considerations, but I explained to you why this isn't the case for some other minorities and the resulting lack of calls for secession from them, something you didn't seem to understand previously.

The international reputation of Nigeria is awful now, for reasons we all know too well. And of course this results in little international prestige or power. But whatever separate states were to be created from secession movements could never even be considered for say, a U.N. seat, or be called upon consistently to play major roles in peace keeping, or be able to have any large scale economic impact, even if every state was to become a Japan, it would still be nowhere near as good as being even half a China, although obviously, at some point (the short run) the reverse was the case (1800s-early 1900s Japan was obviously China's superior), the next centuries and the long run of achievements and power belong to a China rather than a Japan.

Asking honestly for some input from others about whether the development of the country into an actual nation, the first step into becoming something greater than a geographical cage, is possible considering the inherent flaw in the country pre-independence and whether the imbalance of merit will ever be overcome, does not amount to asserting the impossibility of Nigeria working as a nation. Obviously the fact of zoning, and of ethnic politics in general are a huge obstacle, but the question being posed to Nairalanders was essentially whether a new Nigerian nationalism could be born despite the ethnically driven politics and imbalance of development along ethnic lines. Only one person responded in the affirmative, and everybody else responded oppositely and crucified him, so I guess I got a sense of the general pessimism with regards to my question and to Nigerian unity as a whole.

igbo boy:
Lecture who? Teacher dont teach me nonsense (Quoted from fela),

So you have seen others enh? anuofia, I was no way saying urhobos commit crimes. I was responding to the guy who said he has never seen an urhobo name before among criminals. All I am saying is that I have seen a yoruba, igbo, urhobo, bini, etc name among those accused of doing crimes (although a huge chunk of the names tend to be yoruba and igbo due to their population i guess)

I aint urhobo but yes i know urhobo/isoko names sue me

morafocker



My guy sharap there

Dishonesty. Just hush. It's pointless arguing with a child.

--190--:
[size=13pt]LOL THIS GUY NA SUPER MARIO [/size]

lmao

igbo boy:
morafocker u the dumbass, I dont need to know your reasons so spare me the lecture, I am done with university so enough with the lectures,

If you have never seen an Urhobo name before it means u dont read the newspaper as often as u should

"morafocker"?

And I will lecture you, boy. I have the academic qualifications to do so. Maybe you should go back to university and learn how to be less of a dumbass. Dumbass.

And don't pretend you know Urhobo names, because you don't. But there have been very few instances of them doing this kind of stuff despite the fact that they are southern Nigerians. I might have read of a few others, but this is the only one that comes to memory. It was surprising for the same reason that it would surprising to see a Kanuri name or a Bachama name, and pretending that that isn't the case is just dishonesty or stupidity.

Onlytruth: All the bolded are boldfaced lies, and I will prove it.

So, the "minorities" only concern with joining a Biafra according to you, is their preference for a bigger country with a better chance of success, right?

Isn't it contrary to the same minority feelings that Igbo hardly fail in any endeavors which is the motive of the jealousy?
More importantly, in this context as "bigger" is presumed to mean "succeessful"; Aren't there "smaller" countries like Switzerland that are richer than "bigger" countries like Pakistan?
Isn't Switzerland more stable and successful than Afghanistan and Pakistan?
In Africa, is Botswana not more successful than DRC, or Somalia (with a long sea coast)?

So, unless you are telling me that Edo state is controlled by illiterates, or that in the 50 year history of Nigeria, that Edo state has been the most developed and progressive state, then, I have to suspect your claims.
More importantly, I have to suspect what you would do if you notice that Igbo would soon successfully pull out of Nigeria.

What I'm doing is identifying possible saboteurs or potential enemies of a seceding Igbo nation.



Yes, the minorities don't want to secede alone because they will fail as nations. They don't have the spirit to sustain a viable nation on their own. Let's be honest. If they did, they would not have fought against Biafra. They would have been busy seceding. So, what I hate is that such minorities don't want to secede, but they would work with Hausas or whoever is trying to stop Igbo from

You didn't really understand me at all. I never said Nigeria had a better chance of success than Biafra, actually I'm quite certain that in the short run the opposite is the case, but the same could easily be said about a Yoruba republic. I'm talking about the long term. Bigger actually means something different. Nigeria, as a country, might be a huge colonial mistake, but it also happens to the only African country which could ever compete with any major world powers if it were ever to work.

I'm not a fan of Bolaji Akinyemi (I think he's a sycophant and hypocrite) or most of his ideas, and I don't feel that we need to be a "black Mecca," but were Nigeria to splinter, no other country on the African continent would have the potential to ever be a world power. It should be pretty obvious then, that the course of history would not be much different from the previous five hundred years, except that this time, your overlords would be the Indians and Chinese.

As for DR Congo and Somalia, prior to the modern era (in historical times), both had been at a greater level of development than the area that is now Botswana, most likely through sheer size, and if they ever sort out their problems they will be greater than Botswana even when operating at half capacity.

Switzerland is merely a confederacy of different types of Germanic peoples, not one homogeneous people, who branched off from those larger groups to form a state based on shared ideals and is really not indicative at all of the optimal state for development in Europe. If Europe had been an area composed of 800 Switzerlands, instead of what it actually is now, they would have been nothing to the world. It is a very telling fact that the Renaissance and the industrial revolution, that the Swiss made only very slight contributions to, which they were beneficiaries of by proxy, was developed by much larger states. That should give you something of a clue as to which kind of country is preferable in terms of historical achievement.

Afghanistan is a kind of reverse Switzerland- composed of different Western Asiatic peoples who were ruled over by others for very long periods of time, but who occasionally birthed important kingdoms/empires of their own, but, basically Afghanistan is not deliberate. It is a kind of historical accident created by invaders and their low level of development despite their location at the crossroads of great "civilizations" should be viewed in light of this. Their low level of development was assisted in modern times by their religion, certainly, but the reason they are nowhere near as developed as other countries has to be viewed  from what level of development they are coming from. Truth be told, the Swiss of the 1500s were probably more developed than the area that is now the country of Afghanistan is in modern times. Pakistan however, is industrializing. Don't be fooled by what you see on the news, they aren't China, but they definitely aren't Afghanistan. The problem with them is that like Afghanistan, a large portion of their people also were at an extremely low level of development by the modern era, whereas the Swiss have not been undeveloped relative to the world for hundreds of years.

"Yes, the minorities don't want to secede alone because they will fail as nations. They don't have the spirit to sustain a viable nation on their own. Let's be honest. If they did, they would not have fought against Biafra."

Your perception of history, like I said, is a bit skewed by your inability to consider outside perspectives.  Most of these groups could care less about fighting a Biafra except those that considered themselves Northerners. The rest only fought a Biafra after Biafra fought them. Otherwise they would have watched and let things turn out however they turned out.

As for Edo state, I never said its inhabitants were particularly incompetent or competent. If left to themselves, they modern day Edo would form a pretty great state and your idea that they wouldn't be able to make it on their own is a bit silly considering their ancient history, in which that was exactly what they were doing. In modern times though, a developed Edo country would always be weaker thano a developed Nigeria. The real reason there is no secession there is because of the obviousness of this, not because they don't think they could succeed on their own. If anything, Edo people are extremely confident in their ability especially vis-a-vis other Africans for reasons I need not expound upon. If by some impossible series of events, Edo state were to become the Edo republic (since Dahomey already took the real name), Edo people would probably jump for joy and have a committee ready to design a flag, elevate the Oba to a ceremonial head of state (like the Queen of U.K.) in order to give the monarchy the higher prestige they feel it deserves, design their own money with historical symbols from the past (much more than just the Queen Idia mask on the naira), and promote their ethnic nationalism and self-glorification in a way no different than a Biafran might, but this would be short sighted, as might the Biafran view, when they could be part of something even greater in the full international scheme of things and world history than their own smaller republic, no matter how psychologically pleasing their own republic might be.

As I said, I don't oppose a Biafra and would not be involved in any "police action"- actually I think there probably should be a Biafra only because of the special history of the tragedies inflicted upon the Igbos by Nigeria but not because I could see it as an inherently better idea than a successful Nigeria. I only commented here because some promoters of Biafra seem to not to comprehend the indifference of some people in the former Midwest region to a Biafra and the actual origins of the opposition from some minorities in the former Eastern region to Biafra. Not because I would actually fight (lol@ the thought of that) against Biafra.

I also think you really don't know much about a lot of the minorities in Nigeria, which would be excusable, if you weren't talking about them and Biafra. With regard to Nupes, Igalas, and Idoma, I am in fact skeptical of whether countries consisting only of them might be successful, because of their track record in Nigeria so far.

With regard to Urhobos, however, they are in fact very intelligent and educated, from my experiences interacting with them and from my observations of the higher number of them to be encountered in academia than other minorities with a similar population (of about 1 million (such as the three groups previously mentioned)). With regard to Itsekiri, they, like the Urhobo, are also about as competent as the average southern Nigerian. But there isn't really any reason why they should be fighting for independence and that's why they aren't, not because of some doubt about their own ability or spirit. That is all I would like to get across to you. If you want to continue to believe some of the things you do, fine, do so, and we'll just "agree to disagree."

Aloy+Emeka:
You knew that how?

"Okpako"

igbo boy:
So what if he is Urhobo? Crime is not limited to one group of people, Geez

Dumbass. Don't assume what my reasons were for saying that. It's not that I think that there is some other tribe that he should have belonged to to be this big of a criminal, it's because I've simply never seen an Urhobo name linked to any of these kinds of crimes before, whereas I've seen many other southern Nigerian people (Yoruba, Igbo, Edo, Ijaw, etc.) involved in this stuff before. It's surprising because it means that this 419 tendency is permeating EVERY state and city in southern Nigeria, even the ones you never used to hear about.

Nonsense.

He's Urhobo. Surprising.

True.

Onlytruth:
I have learned to look for the truth in the most unlikely places, and always advise my Igbo brothers to do same.

Okay, you say that there is no jealousy against a potential Igbo only country. Why then are your Edo people staunch one Nigerians (with Igbo included in it)? Why not just have one Nigeria without the Igbos?

I would like to see Edo and other minorities openly call for sole secession, or openly ask Nigeria to excise Igbo from Nigeria. In fact I would like you and other minorities not to insist on ONE NIGERIA because Ndigbo really want out.
Or you can call for one Nigeria without the Igbos.

This your lame attempt to make it seem as if secession is a limited Igbo movement is really lame. It is not an Anambra/Imo/Enugu axis thing; i.e. if you want to admit the truth.

Like I've said before, my only concern is to prevent people who would not leave Nigeria from ganging up against those who would. That is my only concern.

As for your police action, well, we shall see about that, won't we? No need talking about that.

The truth lies in why you don't want to leave Nigeria.

*Sigh*

Mr. Onlytruth, its clear you're not really understanding me. Edo people, and some other minorites, unlike some jealous minorities in the former Eastern region, are extremely disinterested in taking sides, and were not involved and could not have been involved in any 'gang-up" against Biafra without Biafran provocation. To this day I won't bat an eye if Igbos decide to stay or leave, but since it obviously pains them to stay, and since they have a very strong case for leaving, I say they should have their own country. So its not that I require one Nigeria or even one Nigeria with Igbos, it's just that for me and many other minorities a country like Nigeria could be something greater than the individual constituents.

Obviously some people can think that Nigeria is too big to fail (but obviously it has already), while others can think it's too big to work. This doesn't mean that if you're an optimist and think it can eventually work, and be more than a geographical amalgamation, that you staunchly OPPOSE the self-determination drives of its constituent members, it only means that you much more strongly support a possible giant. With regard to the Edo people you could even view this in relation to the Benin Empire- why be your own Monaco, when you can be part of Germany/Russia/U.K., etc.?

That really explains a big part of why there isn't a mass minority secession movement and Idomas, Igalas, Urhobos, Itsekiris, Nupes, etc,  aren't all up in arms for their own (somewhat impractical) states.

As for the axis thing I only mentioned that because it is a very real fact, which Biafran propagandists will have to sit and think deeply about how to overcome, that people like Ika Igbos or Ikwerres seem disinclined to even admitting Igboness and joining the wider Igbo cause, which is why you need to win them over diplomatically, or else opposing forces  (no, not Edos, or other disinterested minorities really, but possibly a combination of Northerners (who control the military) allied with jealous minorities and/or  opportunists and profiteers) might attempt another "police action" if you try and incorporate them into Biafra.

Like I said, its not about not wanting to leave Nigeria. It's more about there being little impetus for those minorities watching from the sidelines to promote their own secession or that of other groups of people or join that of others, when the alternative-the successful development of Nigeria into a stable and prosperous nation-is a clear and possible impetus for remaining in Nigeria.

tpiah:
how old are these flags you speak of?

never heard of anything like that though i did a quick search- saw one of the flags but couldnt find any info on the history.

The Benin flag is apparently based on a flag of  Benin captured by British forces during 1897 expedition so I don't know how old it really is.

The green flag of the Sokoto caliphate is as old as Usman dan Fodio's jihad I suppose (around 1800 AD).

But nobody actually uses these flags. Just an interesting historical fact that the two known flags of pre-Nigerian states are worse than the Nigerian one.

Jakumo:
Honorable Patric Obahiagbon, alarmed and singularly dismayed by the incomprehensible predisposition of contemporary youth to shamelessly lower their trousers in a manner that flagrantly exposes the entire gluteus maximus anatomical topography to the unforgiving elements and to public scrutiny, has taken it upon himself to assume a bold leadership role in setting new, exciting standards of innovative sartorial elegance, aimed at reversing the nihilistic travesties of popular fashion currently emanating from the mass media and North American music industry like sulfurous magma from an infernal volcanic eruption.   

Constitutionally, and in his esteemed capacity as Nigeria's Grammar Man Extraordinaire, Obahiagbon retains the locus standi to vigorously pursue this noble modus operandi to its logical conclusion, despite ALL protests and disingenuous, denigrating but inherently futile public commentary.    Fifty years from now, when the HIGH WAIST modality of dress has been universally adopted worldwide by rebellious youth, and enthusiastically celebrated by avant garde men's attire prognosticators, Mr. Obiahagbon will be duly recognized and eulogized as the uncompromising trend setter that he has always been, regardless of all unpatriotic attempts to pour approbation, ridicule and jealous contempt on his revered personage.  Nihil incarborendum illegitimi.

lmao, Obahiagbon is a clown,

Onlytruth: My friend if you want to be honest, you would at least admit what I said, which is that the minorities should be presented with the opportunity of joining a Biafra. My reason is that I have met folks from Edo state who say that want to join up. In fact I know many people from far and wide up to Benue who want to ensure that Igbos are in  their country. They cannot imagine staying in a country without the Igbos. This is not boasting.

I am a pragmatist, and I know that most of those who fought against Biafra did so out of jealousy. They feared that a successful Igbo dominated country will dwarf their backward countries left behind. I don't need to prove anything about that. An Igbo country will soar like an eagle. So, most fought against Biafra OUT OF JEALOUSY. Therefore, to neutralize such jealousy I advocated that we offer them an opportunity to join up.
I really don't want to say more than that on this issue.

I know that most of you think only about oil, hence you want to emerge new Dubais and Equatorial Guineas. What you don't understand is that it will never happen as long as there is oil there. The most likely scenario is that the Igbo will secede from Nigeria alone and leave you all to the Hausa/Fulani and maybe Yoruba to continue milking the oil because those folks are not leaving Nigeria until your oil is finished. So, forget about those dreams 'cos it ain't happening.

Now, for the record once more. I do not advocate violence or forced annexation of minority lands. What I said was that we have a documented history of how the coastal regions developed and who migrated there first. Therefore, I know for a fact that there is no way Igboland will be landlocked. QED.

Do you not know that there are indigenous Igbos in Edo and Benue? These people you met possibly had Igbo ancestry. Recently Tivs wanted to join other Tivs in Cameroon (implausible, really) and secede, and you think there is really any desire on their part to be Biafrans? I want Igbos to have their own country too and I'm Edo, but your idea of the minorities possibly wanting to join up en masse, rather than a few of your friends/acquaintances telling you what you would appreciate hearing is simply unrealistic and I was correcting it.

It is also a little bizarre that you might want Benue in Biafra, considering the role some middle belt people played in the civil war.

"They cannot imagine staying in a country without the Igbos. This is not boasting."- It is in fact just boasting and only that. There simply is no credible source for any sort of feeling like this among any minority with no cultural or other ties to Igbos. Somebody like Gowon might say that Nigeria without the Igbos would be a failure, but he would say something like that for the same reason he would apologize for the Asaba massacres he had nothing to do with, i.e. to score political points and improve his reputation with a somewhat disenfranchised group and justify the entire "police action" of the war through flattery.

"I am a pragmatist, and I know that most of those who fought against Biafra did so out of jealousy. They feared that a successful Igbo dominated country will dwarf their backward countries left behind. I don't need to prove anything about that. An Igbo country will soar like an eagle. So, most fought against Biafra OUT OF JEALOUSY. Therefore, to neutralize such jealousy I advocated that we offer them an opportunity to join up.
I really don't want to say more than that on this issue."- Jealousy of what, exactly? Eastern minorities (some of whom are now called "South South" might have been jealous, certainly, but Midwestern minorities (and I am really only focusing on them because you brought up Edo state) were extremely disinterested in the whole affair of the power struggle between the larger groups, as many of them still are today, and only fought against Biafra after Biafra dragged them into it. In truth, at a certain point there was mass resentment of Igbos in the Midwest, owing not only to the "liberation" itself and the disturbance of peace but also to the collusion of some Midwest Igbos with Biafran forces, not because of some jealous desire to pull apart the chances of Igbos at having their own country, though this resentment has basically faded out completely. The likely fact that the Asaba massacre was orchestrated by a furious Bini officer, and not Hausas, as asserted by John de St. Jorre in The Nigerian Civil War and the fact that there IS a Murtala Muhammmed Way in Benin City, and the good reputation he has in that city, should give you some clue as to the obstacles facing a union of certain states with a Biafra.

In reality the only thing you might have in common with Edo people is resentment of incompetent Hausas running Nigeria. I have heard on too many occasions anti-Hausa, though not always anti-Islam, statements from Edo people, even with some northern Edos being Muslims, and maybe you interpreted the complaining of an Edo friend about the status quo as a desire to sign up to a country that the majority of the people in the state just would not sign up for. Like I said before, Urhobos and Itsekiris would not even merge with Edo, not to talk of Edo merging with Biafra.

"I know that most of you think only about oil, hence you want to emerge new Dubais and Equatorial Guineas. What you don't understand is that it will never happen as long as there is oil there. The most likely scenario is that the Igbo will secede from Nigeria alone and leave you all to the Hausa/Fulani and maybe Yoruba to continue milking the oil because those folks are not leaving Nigeria until your oil is finished. So, forget about those dreams 'cos it ain't happening."- Who is "most of you"? Did you even bother to read through my previous posts to see what my ethnicity was before you assumed that we "only think about oil"? I'm not Ijaw buddy. Edo state, really, is barely an oil producing state,and I don't think all those universities would be in Edo state if all we think about is oil. In reality, most Edos I know are staunch One-Nigeria people, and that One Nigeria of theirs includes Igbos and Yorubas, (Edos had no problem being either Action Group or NCNC in the fifties and sixties, but with the death of NCNC, there are more AC Edo people, many that I know personally support Utomi, and of course there are PDP stooges) but would prefer a Nigeria without Hausa-Fulanis and some other northerners.

There has never been a secession movement in Edo State and there isn't any real reason there could be one. So while you are here naively assuming every minority wants to secede because I mentioned probable cases like that of the Ogonis, who would definitely try to form a Singapore, that is really not the case. What I meant was that they wouldn't be keen on Biafra for the same reasons they don't want to merge with each other, and for the added reason that they could never see it as their country. The truth is that some of these minorities, Ogonis, and possibly Ijaw excluded, would want to part of something greater than a mere Singapore or Dubai, which is certainly the case with the Edos. But a Biafra is not in any way an inherently more attractive option to them than trying to join an all Yoruba republic (such as becomrich's fabled and magnificent Benin Republic), which they would never even go for.

As for Biafra being landlocked, that is a debate which I didn't really get into and am not all that interested in, honestly, I just stated that the inclusion of minorities in Biafra would give access to sea and oil, which they would. Obviously the sooner some obviously Igboid minority peoples start identifying as Igbo and furthermore, as Biafran, this would become a moot point, and Biafra really couldn't be landlocked without needing to dig up historical documents to prove the ancestry of people. But when the impetus for Biafra remains in the Anambra/Imo/Enugu axis it will seem like Biafranity is being forced upon others (for their own good) who don't identify with the political bigwigs and give another excuse for a "police action" by opposing parties.

Like I said I don't have anything against you personally, but I think you don't really understand any outside perspectives and are just assuming things.

I won't say "QED" here because I have too much respect for that phrase to invoke it debates rather than proofs, so I'll only say peace.

EzeUche22: First of all, I doubt the Ijaws are the 4th largest ethnic group in Nigeria. That should belong to the Ibibio, if you include the Efik and Annang, because they speak the same language and have similar cultural characteristics. I should know, I am half Ibibio and I speak Ibibio fluently. I can speak with great EASE with an Efik man or an Annang man with no problem.

The Ijaws have been a problem for not only the Igbo, but for the Itsekiri (who hate them with a passion), the Yoruba, Urhobo, Ikwerre, and Isoko. Why can't they get along with their neighbors? We Igbos complain about them for a reason. There would never be a Niger Delta republic, because the Ibibio would never join a Ijaw dominated gov't. The Ogoni would never join nor would the Itsekiri who join their Yoruba cousins and the Urhobo would go along with the Edo people.

You act as if the Ijaws controls the whole oil coastline. The Ijaws are not even native to the East. Bayelsa is not their homeland. They moved East of the River Niger to their present land. But you had other groups living in the region such as Igbo people.

The Ijaws could have been easily pacified. And yes through violence. They are not fit for diplomacy, because they will stab you in the back. The Ibibio and Efik were Eastern minorities who gave up a lot of lives to defend Biafra. We Igbos know our true friends and it is not the Ijaws.

To the best of my knowledge, the Ibibio/Efik/Annang number somwhere over 6 million. The Ijaws numbering 10 million, doesn't surprise me because they're kind of all over the place. Some in the "Midwest," some in the East, and even some in Ondo state. It might not be completely accurate but it seems more plausible to me that they're the fourth largest than any other group right now.

As for controlling the coastline, I never meant the whole coastline, I meant the "whole cake"  that is the combination of sea access and oil and how they would not want to give up a chance at a possible monopoly on their unearned gifts, though I see how you could have read it the way you did.

But I'm talking about all the minorities really because the Ogonis (most of whom supported Biafra) would just go for independence, especially after Wiwa's movement and I actually doubt the Urhobos would go with the Edos, cultural ties or not and I doubt that the Itsekiri would go with the Yoruba. You probably  assume these things because you probably haven't read anything indicating how vocal these groups can be about the interests of their specific groups.

ezeagu:
I don't know anywhere in Nigeria an Igbo would be considered a Nigerian first, even with "sensible" people. The 'other group' mentality already exists. . . . .

Simply not true. Pat Utomi has widespread support from non-Igbos. Chinua Achebe is widely praised by virtually all Nigerians. My Edo father still talks in glowing terms about "Zik of Africa." Elechi Amadi (even if he doesn't consider himself Igbo) is the favorite author of many non-Igbos. Dora Akunyili is highly regarded, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, etc., etc.

And though any logical Igbo person could write this off as a symptom, not exclusive to Nigeria, of praising people as great members of a nation when they do good, but then attacking the same ethnicity that they are from when any of them do bad, the fact that people are proud of them as countrymen and women in the first place would never be possible if they were considered as members of the "other" group first. It is only very irrational, silly people (and there ARE a lot of those, I'll admit that), that would never see these people as their compatriots.

Do you really think when non-Igbo people praise Sam Okwaraji or Jay Jay Okocha as great Nigerians they are fighting some impulsive drive to view them as part of the "other" group, and not support them? Only bigots do so. The only real issue which contributes to this feeling of resentment of the "other" is indigenous resentment of outsiders, which Igbos arouse more than others only because they travel more widely and excel wherever they are at, unlike, say, Hausa beggars, which are easily ignored. But this is more so the fault of indigenous people, usually from an older generation, who fail to see the benefits of an integration of Nigeria and the breakdown of pure ethnic enclaves and more ties between the different peoples of Nigeria,

naijaking1:
In a civilized society, the likes of Adaka Boro would have been rightly locked up in jail or regarded as an opportunistic rebel rouser at best.
However, in Nigeria, opportunism, and not realism is the key to political success. Boro was educated in eastern Nigeria, infact the majority Igbo students of UNN elected him union president, because they saw him as one of them first, and as Ijaw second.

In truely minority-suppressive societies, Ijaws or other minorities would have been hindered from going to the nations premier institutions, they would have been limited to minial positions, and would have been denied total access to political relevance, luckily onbody can say that in Nigeria.

Of all the people who have come to this forum to proclaim how the Igbo dominated eastern Nigerian government hurt minorities, none has been able to show that discrimination against the so-called minority people was an official government policy. And I don't mean that there were never personal or even group hostilities towards minorities,or even towards fellow members of the majority for that matter, but the these incidents should not have risen to the level of fraternicide in eastern Nigeria.

Every society has majority and minority cultures, groups, and ethnic groups. While the will of the majority is done, the interest of the minority is religiously safeguarded---this is the ideal!
Classification of everybody as majority is false, but emphasis of the dichotomic events should not be emphasized. Before the advent of our free flowing oil, taxation remained the source of government income, and it's impossible to deny the majority of the group that raise those taxes adequate representation, because one needs to balance an ethnic equation.

Actually, you seem to have completely missed the mark and not understood what I meant by domination. I didn't mention marginalization or discrimination. These are clearly different things. If tomorrow, under a government not dominated by any specific ethnic group, but an amalgam of different groups all with a progressive interest, it is decided that all quota systems are eliminated from federally funded higher institutions of learning, southern students will absolutely dominate all universities. Would this correspond to some sort of deliberate attempt by southern leaders. lawmakers, etc. to "discriminate" against or "marginalize" the north? Of course not! But it WOULD be domination. Hence, the current arrangement. No group with the power to oppose any kind of domination, would actually allow it to pass.

To get some insight into what prompted Boro, and Wiwa and others:

"For example, the evolution of Port Harcourt, created in 1913, shows the arrival of Ibo settlers in 1937. The land was bought by the British from the Ikwerres. While the latter spent years trying unsuccessfully to reclaim their land from the government, while they never benefited from the city's phenomenal development, the Ibos became the major beneficiaries; by 1953, they constituted 80% of the population. In short, unlike other immigrant groups (Ogoni, Ibibio, Edo, Yoruba, Sierra-Leoneans), the Ibo took over control of the land, so much so that, in the 1949 Town Council elections, they won hands down, using their education and wealth. Saro-Wiwa uses this example to  affirm the Ibos's cunning: they claim, as Azikiwe once did, that "suffering is the label of our tribe," whereas, it is a persecution complex used to sneak up on other unwary people who end up conceding everything to them. The Ibos have consistently frustrated other Rivers people, not only the Ikwerres. Saro-Wiwa asserts that they infiltrated the Rivers State Movement in the 50's. The Ibo State Union was used as an instrument. Under the leadership of Z.C. Obi, a Port Harcourt-based merchant, the Union claimed that Rivers was "part of Ibo land," and that even if a new state would be created, Port Harcourt, "predominantly Ibo," must not be a part of it, since "the area was developed by the Ibos and the land owned by them now." In short, Saro-Wiwa considers the Ibo inhabitants as colonizers of the Rivers people."- from Ken Saro-Wiwa: a bio-critical study by Femi Ojo-Ade

I should point out that I'm well aware that Ikwerres are really Igbos, whether they acknowledge it or not, but unlike some people (many Igbos) I know that historical competition like this between them and immigrant Igbos is one of the reasons they tried to distance themselves, so I'm not posting this quote to start any kind of pointless debate on whether they are really Igbos or whether Rivers is mostly Igbo, but to explain why it would be hard for people to fraternize with people who are dominating them, even if they are doing so through completely legitimate and innocent means.

I should point out that I don't actually agree with Saro-Wiwa's characterizations of the Igbo above and that the book from which this quote is taken is actually extremely critical of Saro-Wiwa- the most negatively critical book I've read so far that is scholarly- and goes to great lengths to expose his hypocrisy, jealousy of the Igbos, sycophancy toward the Hausas/Fulanis/North and the Federal military, his desire to advance the Ogoni cause more than the "minority cause" in general, and how his advocacy of Ogoni secession while opposing Biafran secession was extremely hypocritical, so the book is stating the views of people who were outperformed by the Igbos objectively. This is just one example, but I'm only posting the quote so you can understand what the real schism was, between people like Boro, Wiwa, etc. instead of insisting on the myth of a single greedy flawed Ijaw leader being the root of the schism in the East

Now this is funny.

Hmmm. Possibly. But the entire military is in Northern hands now, so,

And all they gave him was a slap on the wrist. Shame.

"Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no ‘Nigerians’ in the same sense as there are ‘English,’ ‘Welsh,’ or ‘French.’ The word ‘Nigerian’ is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria and those who do not.”- Obafemi Awolowo, Path to Nigerian Freedom

Reading all the back and forth about zoning on this forum got me thinking,

Is it not the case that the political foundations of Nigeria are INHERENTLY unstable, and that we will never reach a point where only merit will determine who governs this country? It should be obvious that if only the best from every region have a say, then mediocrity and inadequacy, incompetence, etc. will be severely reduced, but with the different sections of the country not being equally developed prior to independence and with no amount of oil money or any other industry being able to bring every part of the country to some high degree of prosperity (i.e. wealth without real work, like Saudi Arabia, or actual oil-rich countries) and level the playing field to allow those who were not able to compete in a merit based system to compete, what incentive will there ever be to adopt a purely merit based stance towards government and development?

experience:
Richy and onlytruth, thanks for the books, will get them asap.

Noted. However part of the reasons why the nations - Urhobo, Isoko, Itsekiri are to be included are noted here. They would be informed for diplomatic and formal reasons. From the discourse on this thread so far, the 'big bad Igbo' myth has been largely quashed. None of these nations have anything to lose if anything lots to gain. But as Asha alluded to, no be by force; this new union would have no semblance to Nigeria.

Actually, the myth (and it certainly is a myth) has not at all been quashed. A quick sampling of posts by EzeUche22 and Onlytruth would only reinforce it. Although I have no problem with them as individuals, and they both seem like competent people, they, like yourself, and possibly even Ojukwu himself (if the purported dialogue of a conversation of Ojukwu's about the possible 'incorporation' of the Midwest into Biafra, as mentioned in John de St. Jorre's book about the Nigerian civil war is legitimate), do not seem to have even the slightest comprehension of what the feelings of Nigerian minorities with no cultural ties to Igbos are towards a possible incorporation into Biafra.

I can assure you all that no matter how good a proposal Biafran supporters think they would be able to offer, it would be vigorously opposed by every vocal and/or educated member of those societies, whether Urhobo, Isoko, Itsekiri, or whatever, not with "diplomatic' or 'formal" negotiation needing to take place, but by a mass repulsion amongst commoners and elites to the idea of going from being a minority in a state fought over by three "unneeded" groups who at least have no say over their local activities and who comprise a country which is seen as a sort of amalgam (even if a bad one) of Africans from a particular geographical area (a mere "geographical expression" to being a minority in a state run (governed) by another ethnicity and associated with it more than it could ever be with their own, which would always make the dominant group (Igbos) the "other," and prevent the possibility of any shared feeling of ownership of a country. The obvious reaction, especially those from areas invaded during the civil war by Biafrans , could never be acceptance, but instead they would each vie for individual independence for their groups, to create a bunch of Equatorial Guineas or Singapores, or form a federation of former minorities, using oil money to become a bunch of Omans or Dubais.

You may never even have thought in these terms but the near equality of population between the three major groups in the West, East, and North (I know the North as whole is supposedly bigger than the whole south, but I'm just talking about Yorubas, Igbos, and Hausa-Fulanis only) essentially means that in theory, no single group can rule the country. (If the middle belt was not under "core northern" sway (that is, if southern politicians bothered to try and appeal to them), the Hausa-Fulani would not always be ruling Nigeria today.)

This means that no person can actually say that Nigeria as a country "belongs" more to a Yoruba or Igbo than to an Isoko or Itsekiri. In a possible Biafra, if 75% or more of the population is Igbo, and as a result almost every major decision is carried out by an Igbo, will the minorities in that state feel that it is an Igbo country, or that there is actually something like a Biafran nationality to which their ethnic identity is a part of? The tricky part here is that merely reassuring them that that is the case would not make it so; in fact, every association of Biafran success with Igbo efforts or ability, however innocently stated, would chafe at their sense of Biafraness/Biafranity.  Unlike in Nigeria, where sensible people see Igbos as Nigerians first, and Igbos second, minorities with no shared cultural ties or history with Igbos would see Igbos as the "other" group, to be opposed or overcome.

Onlytruth actually thought at one point that "Edo state proper" could be in Biafra. Which is evidence of sheer cluelessness of the perspectives of others.

He, and others, should know, Urhobos and Itsekiris did not even want to be part of the proposed EDOWA (Edo + Warri) state, and Edos did not want it either, even though these three groups have more ties than some other groups in Nigeria that share states. And some people think they will want to join Biafra, made up of people whom they share very few ties with?

You might not even know this, but after Biafra, even some Kanuris (descendants of the Kanem-Borno empire) wanted to join forces with their brothers in Chad and resurrect the defunct state rather than being dominated by the larger Hausa-Fulani in Nigeria. Needless to say, they were shut down.


What you and him and others need to understand is that without this colonial amalgamation called Nigeria, no group really "needs" any other group or feels it does, nor would any group feel that it was not capable of being on its own when the amalgamation ceased.

The political trend, since before Isaac Boro is towards ethnic autonomy (just think of the proposed Anioma state), which you should actually welcome, as a Biafran, but it might mean that Biafra really might really be Igbo only- which also shouldn't be a problem, since the minorities definitely don't need Igbos and Igbos definitely don't really need the minorities, even if they would be deprived of sea and oil (which many countries function better than Nigeria without).

IG, are there any books, written by any professional scholars, or any more comprehensive sources about the black semites of the middles east, rather than just a blog/website? I've long been interested in the stories I had read about the original inhabitants of many parts of the middle east being blacks, but have not found much information to validate them.

experience:
Nations you mean (rotational headship remember).

Any maps/lists of provinces with towns yet?

Also any reps of the Ibibio, Efik, Andoni (sp?), Izon, Ogoni etc to also give their provincial arrangements?

The best description is here (needs some serious revision by the discussions on this thread so far). It should give us a framework to modify.

http://www./biaframap2004.jpg

The first modification you can make is with regard to the inclusion of Warri and Ughelli in Biafra. That would never pass.

Quote from: EzeUche22 on September 04, 2010, 04:45 PM
My very own father fought valiantly during the siege of Onitsha so you are using only antedotal evidence. Yes, the Ohafia/Abam warriors are known far and wide, but we were not in the leadershjip positions, of course we could not tap into our true potential. Grin

The biggest lesson of Biafra is that in times of peace, we should prepare for war, and in times of war, we should prepare for peace. We should never have invaded the midwest region and we should of focused on the Niger Delta. Not pacifying the Eastern Ijaw was our BIGGEST mistake. We should of handled Adaka Boro when we had the chance.

Onlytruth: I cannot fault the bolded. I think that the "Adaka Boro issue" should have been dealt with thoroughly before the war started.
Okay I'll say one more thing. The Biafran leadership lost sight of the strategic picture before the war started. It is good to be "flexible" at all times because that makes you unpredictable. Our leadership was too rigid and predictable. They were courageous of course, but too fixed. Undecided The Ijaw was not Biafra's biggest headache if we did the right things first.

I still recall the first gulf war and all the diplomatic attempts by the US President George Bush senior to get Saddam Hussein to withdraw peacefully from Kuwait. That effort lasted for more than 6 months. At the same time of diplomacy, the senior Bush was busy building international alliances. When he launched "operation desert storm", he said I paraphrase "I want to tell Saddam Hussein, that no nation can stand the might of the international community". By then an armada of over 70 warships from different countries was already in the Persian gulf. The rest is history.

The Ijaw "issue" was like a fly in the Biafran ointment. It should have been removed before the war.

How would it have been "dealt with thoroughly"? How could it have been? Violence? Adaka Boro wanted independence from domination by larger groups before there was ever talk of Biafra, so how could have he been "pacified" if not through violence in the same way they Northern Nigerian controlled government was attempting to "pacify," through violence, the Eastern region?

In the same way that the events leading up to the outbreak of the civil war were the main motivation for the Eastern region's desire to secede, and not merely Ojukwu's call for it or his personal ambition, the motivation to avoid domination by another group with competing interests would still have been there and been a motivation for fragmentation of the east even if Boro was dead in 1967.

And if there was to be a Biafra today, why would Ijaws, the fourth largest ethnic group, with 10 million, ever want to be part of Biafra when they could have the whole cake of coastline and oil to themselves? There was no oil money when Boro first decided his people were underrepresented in Eastern affairs? Now that there is, how could any Ijaw want to be a Biafran?

Biafra failed to win over minorities in Nigeria through a lack of diplomacy. Had they been even more violent, it would have made their cause seem different from what it was and extremely illegitimate. There was no legitimate basis for "pacifying" Eastern Ijaw.

Quote from: Ibime on September 04, 2010, 06:50 PM
I always maintained that invasion of midwest was a tactical move to keep on the offensive through to Lagos rather than fight a defensive war. All military strategists know that the only reason France lost to the German Panzas was due to their defensive stance behind the Maginot line.

Can you correct the erroneous notion of some Biafrans that the aim of invading midwest was to "collect their Igbo brothers". There are many other tribes in Biafra who also need their brothers "collected from midwest" so if Biafrans keep trumpeing this story, they would look hypocritical.

Obiagu: I don't think I saw any statement like that. In fact, Midwest (as a whole) is viewed as eternal part of Biafra by many despite the fact they were not in the Eastern region because many view them as very similar to the East.

You can't be serious.