Nairalandmonika:

Lol, warri was never part of the Benin kingdom, I donno what ever history u have read.
Warri was already established b4 the British came.
The Portugal even arrived first b4 the British, and the first people they made contact with was itsekiri.
Warri was never part of Benin kingdom.

Nicho118:


But na itsekiri still make Warri still backward in terms of development today o

Nairalandmonika:

Lol, warri was never part of the Benin kingdom, I donno what ever history u have read.
Warri was already established b4 the British came.
The Portugal even arrived first b4 the British, and the first people they made contact with was itsekiri.
Warri was never part of Benin kingdom.

emmadothings:
If people like you know their origin Warri would be a paradise

pinkygurl:

Effurun is not Warri.Effurun is uvwie local government area.which has grown towards warri as a result of development.
Itsekiris cannot claim to own Warri.Warri belongs to urhobo,ljaw & itsekiris. Warri has Ijaw domain subject to PERE. itsekiri domain subject to OLU.Warri has urhobo domain.subject to OVIE.
Till eternity ijaw land of Warri remains ljaw land.itsekiri land remains itsekiri land.
Urhobos have their own king. callled OVIE.
Ijaw king PERE. Itsekiri king OLU. Itsekiri oil wells remain itsekiri oil wells.Ijaw oil wells remain Ijaw oil wells.Urhobo oil wells remain urhobo oil wells

Ovie of Agbara in warri for example.
Agbarha comprises of seven patriarch towns of otovwodo-agbarha in warri;igbudu in warri;Edjeba in warri;Okurode,Ogunu,Oteghele and Ukpokiti.Those are exclusively urhobo domains subject to IVIE urhobo king.Agbarha and Okere-urhobo of warri.

Gbaranmatu;Isaba and Ogbe ijoh are exclusively IJaw domains in Warri subject to lJaw king-Pere
Itsekiri domains are subject to king-OLU
Awo changed the traditional title of the Olu of Itsekiri to the Olu of Warri.

The court ruling states unequivocally that the Olu of Warri is a mere titular appellation and his over-lord's powers are limited to Itsekiri traditional homesteads.
OLU OF WARRI CAN ONLY KING OVER ITSEKIRI OIL WELLS OF WARRI & ITSEKIRI OWNED LANDS OF WARRI.
Warri belongs to itsekiris;urhobos & ijaws.
Itsekiris;urhobos & Ijaws all have oil.3 indigenous people;3 different tribes,3 different languages.3 different people subject to 3 different kings & they all know their boundaries. If anybody trespasses his boundary,it would be another Warri crises replay.
ASK WHY YOUR PROMINENT ISTEKIRI KING & CHIEFS WITH THEIR VERY PROMINENT TITLES CANNOT KING OR CHIEF OVER URHOBO OR IJAW OIL WELLS OF WARRI OR THEIR COMMUNIITIES

P.S The name "Warri" was coined by a Portuguese explorer and has no origin with the Itsekiri titular name of "Iwere". This is a historical fact. Furthermore, other names of places in the Warri Axis such as "Forcados" were also colonial coinages. TRADITIONAL WARRI WAS NOT IWERE in itsekiri.NEITHER WAS IT WARE in IJaw

Warri is made up of three local government areas; Warri South LGA which is dominated by the Urhobos of Okere and Agbassa and the Itsekiris, Warri South West which is dominated by Ijaws and Itsekiris and Warri North which is mainly dominated by the Itsekiris with Ijaws as well.
The ijaws,urhobos & itsekiris of warri all have different traditional rulers with trsditional titles in today's traditional warri.
The name "Warri" was coined by a Portuguese explorer and has no origin with the Itsekiri titular name of "Iwere". This is a historical fact.

- In pre-colonial and colonial times, there was a marked division of territory in Warri. The Ijaws occupied the islands and shores in the Warri South West Axis, the Itsekiris occupied the islands and mainlands close to the coastal areas in Warri South and North while the Urhobos occupied the hinterland with the exception of Okere-Urhobo and Agbassa urhobo who occupied coastal regions
- The Agbassa (Agbara-Ame) People of Warri South Local Government Area were migrants to Warri from their home town of Agbarha-Otor just like the Idjerhe(Jesse) and Oghara people of Ethiope West.
NA URHOBO;IJAW & ITSEKIRI LAND the Portuguese dash Warri. The British moved itsekiri OLU traditional palace from ode-itsekiri to Warri mainland.
The Olu of warri is the monarch of ITSEKIRIS ONLY. so he can add OLU OF NIGERIA to his title should he want & copyright it also.THE URHOBOS,IJAWS Of WARRI.do not give a fvck about the title of the king of the ITSEKIRIS OF WARRI as far as he sticks to collecting royalties from ITSEKIRI BOUNDARY ONLY & ITSEKIRI OWNED OIL WELLS ONLY
The Olu or Ogiame (King) of Warri now only rules the Itsekiri people living in the town of Warri in the Delta State of Nigeria as a traditional leader..


https://www.nairaland.com/2148799/warri-urhobos-itsekiris-ijaws-facts


http://www.waado.org/CulturalSubunits/AgbarhaAme/WarriEthnicProblems/AgbarhaReactionToFederalization.htm

http://www.waado.org/CulturalSubunits/AgbarhaAme/WarriEthnicProblems/AgbarhaReactionToFederalization.htm

http://www.waado.org/CulturalUnits/Okpe/sapele_lands/WACA_judgement.html

http://www.waado.org/CulturalUnits/Okpe/sapele_lands/jackson_judgement.htm

Realhommie:
But how can you think the whole of Warri belong to the Itsekiris? Coz by implication that's exactly what you're saying..

Or do you not know that in Warri you also have the Urhobos and the Ijaws? Are these tribes under the control of the Olu?

Whatever federal gazette you talk about is all politics, not even the Olu will attempt to trespass. They all know their boundaries.

makaveli902:

This is how the Federal government recognizes it.

Truthshots2:
Kings generally don't favour people of their own ethnicity because they want popular support from all the people of their Kingdom.

These kingdoms were countries before the british invaded and the system was working fine, way better than Nigeria is working.

Truthshots2:
What most nigerians don't seem to understand is that Kingdom doesn't equal ethnicity.
Indians in England are also subjects of queen Elizabeth, there is no separate king for the Indians and sperate king for the Africans and sperate king for the Romanians in England...
It is one Kingdom, one king.

Truthshots2:


I don't think all of Warri belongs to Itsikeri, but I know all of Warri belongs to the Olu of Warri.
Just like not all of Great Britain belongs to the English, but all of it belongs to the queen of England.

A Kingdom has only one king even though it may have several ethnicities in it.

Truthshots2:
What most nigerians don't seem to understand is that Kingdom doesn't equal ethnicity.
Indians in England are also subjects of queen Elizabeth, there is no separate king for the Indians and sperate king for the Africans and sperate king for the Romanians in England...
It is one Kingdom, one king.

pinkygurl:

POINT OF CORRECTION.ENGLAND IS never the origin of Africans in England,But africa rather.
At best,their ancestors were slaves in England.
England is not their ancestral conquered land,though they are today citizens of England.so they cannot have king of Africans in another person papa land.Political offices Yes.

pinkygurl:

POINT OF CORRECTION.ENGLAND IS never the origin of Africans in England,But africa rather.
At best,their ancestors were slaves in England.
England is not their ancestral conquered land,though they are today citizens of England.so they cannot have king of Africans in another person papa land.Political offices Yes.

Truthshots2:


What about the Scotts ? What about the Welsh ? You do know that Great Britain is not the same thing as England, right ?

In France as well there are several ethnicities, but there was only one king. Kingdom doesn't equal ethnicity. A Kingdom is a country led by a king.

If you want to define ethnicity as language similarity then you have to accept that kingdoms are multiethnic in nature. If not you define ethnicity as belonging to a Kingdom which is a more natural definition. But you can't define ethnicity as both language similarity and belonging to a Kingdom. By the way, language similarity is too subjectif.

pinkygurl:

I am not an English man.so English history and English Land is not my business.
But if a kingdom is indeed a country led by a king.
A king in the african scenario,should be able to command & lead his subjects & discuss kingdom secrets in a language other than English language
So if the slave buying portuguese or the crude oil greedy british colonisers makes a synthetic kingdom or synthetic town out of[b] a cluster of people who can only communicate with each other only when speaking the british man's English language[/b],Then justice & commen sense demands that the king of that synthetic town must never cross his boundary beyond the boundary consisting of the people he can communicate with in a language other than 'English language'. Or yawa go really gas.

Truthshots2:


I don't think all of Warri belongs to Itsikeri, but I know all of Warri belongs to the Olu of Warri.
Just like not all of Great Britain belongs to the English, but all of it belongs to the queen of England.

A Kingdom has only one king even though it may have several ethnicities in it.

Nicho118:



sorry, all parts of Warri city don't belong to the Olu... as a matter of fact he doesn't have any say in over 60% of the communities that makes up the city.
his authority is only on the itsekiri areas of the city

Truthshots2:

The British didn't create Warri Kingdom, they met Warri Kingdom which was a part of Benin empire. So I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Also, your take on history is awfully misguided. In Benin empire, many languages were spoken. In many kingdoms including France and England and Syria, and turkey and Russia, many languages were spoken.

You lack education

pinkygurl:

YOUR LACK OF EDUCATION IS REPULSIVE.
Russia is not a kingdom ruled by a king. the Russians speak *руский язык*. Neither is Russia a kingdom.

pinkygurl:

Mind you mr. Google.
I speak Russian language & l could record an entire conversation in Russian.
And as a Russian language speaker,l can interprete the ukrainain man's ukrain language if he is speaking or Ukraine language inwritten form ..with just my knowledge of Russian. .
Shall two walk together except they agree?
Did they tell you the Russian empire or im the turkey kindgom.The king could not communicate with his subjects in a language other than English language?
Ты очень тупой.твой голово не работает.

Truthshots2:

What proof do you have to back up your claim ?
He is the Olu of Warri !
It seems to me that you guys are trying to create artificial kingdoms based on "ethnicity" out of already existing kingdoms.
Stop playing politics with tradition.

Truthshots2:


I don't think all of Warri belongs to Itsikeri, but I know all of Warri belongs to the Olu of Warri.
Just like not all of Great Britain belongs to the English, but all of it belongs to the queen of England.

A Kingdom has only one king even though it may have several ethnicities in it.

UGBE634:
See I understand what you are trying to say but you must understand they are certainly not perfect scenarios. Warri as it is known today was not the warri the Portuguese met, heck it was modified even by the British, you see what they are trying to tell you is that the present warri of agglomeration of different independent groups. I wish you know that before the Time of awo he was known as olu of itsekiri that's before 1951, she has posted several links to convince that that act made the urhobos and the ijaws took him to court where the court said that it was a mere titular appelation. you should also know that awolowo was so pro-yoruba and he did that because itsekiri is a yoruboid group. you should also know that the olu of itsekiri was the only monarch that opposed the 1963 referendum before he finally gave in that was the then struggle for Midwest region. you should also know that the itsekiri group is very close to and is even regarded as an ijebu subgroup. a group awolowo hails from,a week before he died the coronation of the olu of it sekiri was attended by him. I understand your argument, this is not it awolowo was mischievous. the main point here is that they already had their kings of the various parts of warri before awolowo renamed it the olu of warri

Realhommie:
Guy clean your mouth abeg, you don't know what you're saying..

pinkygurl:


Okumagba is not my business.whether any prominent Ijaw or urhobo or itsekiri warri people intermarried at some point.Let them intermarry till eternity.urhobo land remains urhobo land.ijaw land remains ljaw land.itsekiri land remains itsekiri land.
Urhobos have their own king. callled OVIE.
Ijaw king PERE. Itsekiri king OLU(Ogiame)
Ovie of Agbara in warri rather.
Agbarha comprises of seven patriarch towns of otovwodo-agbarha in warri;igbudu in warri;Edjeba in warri;Okurode,Ogunu,Oteghele and Ukpokiti.Those are exclusively urhobo domains subject to IVIE urhobo king.Agbarha and Okere-urhobo of warri.

Gbaranmatu;Isaba and Ogbe ijoh are exclusively IJaw domains in Warri subject to lJaw king-Pere
Itsekiri domains are subject to king-OLU
Awo changed the traditional title of the Olu of Itsekiri to the Olu of Warri.

The court ruling states unequivocally that the Olu of Warri is a mere titular appellation and his over-lord's powers are limited to Itsekiri traditional homesteads.
OLU OF WARRI CAN ONLY KING OVER ITSEKIRI OIL WELLS OF WARRI & ITSEKIRI OWNED LANDS OF WARRI.
Warri belongs to itsekiris;urhobos & ijaws.
Itsekiris;urhobos & Ijaws all have oil.3 indigenous people;3 different tribes,3 different languages.3 different people subject to 3 different kings & they all know their boundaries. If anybody trespasses his boundary,it would be another Warri crises replay.
NEXT TIME ASK WHY YOUR PROMINENT ISTEKIRI KING & CHIEFS WITH THEIR VERY PROMINENT TITLES CANNOT KING OR CHIEF OVER URHOBO OR IJAW OIL WELLS OF WARRI OR THEIR COMMUNIITIES
https://www.nairaland.com/2148799/warri-urhobos-itsekiris-ijaws-facts


http://www.waado.org/CulturalSubunits/AgbarhaAme/WarriEthnicProblems/AgbarhaReactionToFederalization.htm

http://www.waado.org/CulturalSubunits/AgbarhaAme/WarriEthnicProblems/AgbarhaReactionToFederalization.htm

http://www.waado.org/CulturalUnits/Okpe/sapele_lands/WACA_judgement.html

http://www.waado.org/CulturalUnits/Okpe/sapele_lands/jackson_judgement.htm

Truthshots2:


Look, what you are saying about precolonial Warri being different from current Warri would be best looked into if we could look at precolonial maps and compare. You can go to Gallica website and look for precolonial maps.

It is important to prove what we claim.
And this us very provable if true.

Although I actually learnt from your write-up, especially the dates and circumstances.

In what way are itsikeri "yoruboid" ?