Onlytruth:

Posted by: PROUD-IGBO
Nna it looks like Onitsha: Omagba, Nkpor or Awada area; not sure.
I won't be shocked if it is still Ala Owerre.

asha 80:

wait this aladinma shopping plaza is not that piece of land near housing estate primary school aladinma and is flanked by mbano and lake nwaebere street

when did this happen?

Abagworo:


I don't know why all these envious comments from a fellow Igbo.I have never compared Imo with Anambra but pictures and experience speak louder than words.

Abagworo:

There are actually pedestrian crossings and markings on the major roads now.As for the side walks compare with this sister city that has underground drainage and pavements but yet is unliveable.

aribisala0:

please read my post carefully i did not say ogun state does not have a coastline. even benue state ,kogi state and kaduna states have coastlines. what i said is ogun state does not have a coast on the atlantic.
e.g. if you have ever been behind unilag or on the third mainland what you will observe is an extensive Lagoon coastline. this is NOT the Atlantic.
it is important to distinguish lagoons,BIGHTS or BAYS from the atlantic(OCEAN) they are not the same.
the coastline in ogun is INLAND extension of the lagos Lagoon.  i believe ajumo is in lagos state and is a lagoon village i don't know about olokota but i i know olokola which i think it is in ondo state and again is NOT on the atlantic.
i am not sure there is a place called olokota.
google must be mistaken

aribisala0:

I THINK THE MAP IS WRONG. I AM NOT AWARE OF OGUN STATE HAVING ANY TOWN ON THE ATLANTIC COAST.
the fact that you have to travel through ogun state to get to lagos state ( by road) proves nothing.
you also travel through aba to calabar from port harcourt.
of course i could be wrong and would like to learn the names of any towns or villages in ogun state that are on the atlantic coast

PhysicsQED:

^^^^

You're correct. So I guess 1952-1966 is what is relevant to their discussion.

PhysicsQED:

@ Abagworo, while I agree with the statement that the terrain was a hindrance to development of Bayelsa, I should point out that the Eastern region of Nigeria existed from 1939 to 1966.

Ibime:

The whitewashing of history by the likes of Dede is simply laughable.

I was reading on the internet when I stumbled across an interview with a slave woman from Umahia who was owned by my great-grandfather Chief John George (pure Ijaw man).

It is simply laughable to claim that slave owners were Igbo. It is well known that significant portion of Nembe and Akassa are descendant from slaves. Pray tell, who owned them?

The only difference between Ijaw-owners and Igbo slave-owners is that slaves to Ijaw become part of the family whilst slaves to Igbo become Osu.

Onlytruth:

Posted by: asha 80
Yes I am sure. Onitsha's problem is mainly infrastructure management, eg electricity and transportation planning issues.
I am an Onitsha boy because I spent most of my young life in Onitsha. Even the four story buildings are not planned to accomodate more than 2 flats per floor. In normal circumstances, it should be at least 4 flats per floor. Fortunately, Onitsha has one of the best planned layout system in Eastern Nigeria. If you don't believe me, take a look with Google satellite view. So, even with current space (without spreading out), Onitsha can still accommodate double its current population if properly densified.

But my hope is really on the undeveloped Iyi Owa Odekpe side.
I didn't even know that Anambra state borders Rivers state directly till now and there is a forest reserve there too. Just take a look.

Kobojunkie:

Please post pictures of Owerri so we can track Before and After. Pictures tell a 1000 stories ooo. If we can at least monitor by images, it is a start and will help keep up from being swindled in the future.

13volts:

like the chief of army sstaff or national security adviser

werepeLeri:

whats d wahala there?

How then did they find her if she lost radio communication mid air and her coordinates are unknown?

PhysicsMHD:


I am actually not proving your point here.

Stop and think harder about it.

A simple hypothetical should illustrate my point:

You are 1 of 14 athletes in segregated late 1950s South Carolina and you and your fellow athletes want to compete in the national (U.S.), state-wide competition at your level (high school, college, professional, etc.) and 11 out of 14 are the best in the sport but the state government says it will only fund/sponsor a team which adheres to a racial quota where 6 out of the 12 positions are reserved for people of a different race from your own, regardless of their athletic ability.

(a) Now if these 14 athletes took illegal, violent, and barbaric steps to see that merit was adhered to would you say that they had a black power/latino power/asian power/native american power etc. racial agenda?

(b) Now what if the 14 athletes dressed up in fancy suits, filed eloquent formal complaints, filed lawsuits, peacefully protested and took other civil approaches to see that the racial quota that had been declared without consent or voting was overturned and a merit system was adhered to? Would you still claim they had a racial empowerment agenda? Or would you admit that they were arguing for what is right?

Absolutely nothing has changed between (a) and (b) except for the method. Do not side step the parallels between (b) and modern and recent attempts to correct improper practices and laws by ordinary people. It would be difficult or impossible to ascribe a racial/ethnic empowerment agenda to any and every group which is or almost is racially or ethnically homogeneous and which uses method (b) if the actual complaint has legitimacy. There is no fundamental difference between (a) and (b) except the approach, yet an ethnic agenda is being assigned to a group that used method (a) merely by arguing that the overwhelming majority Igbo makeup of the coupists definitively suggests an ethnic agenda, when one could not just assert that this is self-evident for all cases in which a group which takes either method (a) or (b) in a similar situation is composed overwhelmingly of one ethnic group.

Do note that there are only a few areas where a quota system can be justified, such as to make up for past discrimination with the hope of achieving equality, but can anyone name any past discrimination with regard to the 1950s - 1962 Nigerian military or the officer promotions therein?

With regard to Adekunle, Rotimi, etc., the Westerners and Midwesterners were not in the same position. Scroll down to page 100 of that google books link I posted in my previous post. You can clearly see where it states that prior to the 1962 quota system, two-thirds of officer positions had been going to Easterners. The author of that book is certainly not an Easterner.


Not at all a coincidence. Having a disproportionately higher number of military radicals and/or politicized soldiers (I think this is basically self-evident and I don't think it is at all a conjecture, but if you want, label it as such) in one ethnic group can give the false impression of a conspiratorial group. However having a higher proportion of political soldiers is not an amazing or unbelievable phenomenon when one also considers that there were also higher numbers of officer quality/material soldiers among Igbos with no fundamental explanation for that phenomenon besides culture. If you grow up in a culture where each man is his own sovereign and you bow to no one (not a detailed or precise representation of all Igbo societies, but a rough sketch) outside your own family isn't it plainly obvious that you'll have different political inclinations and responses to crises than someone from a culture where you pay obeisance to at least 8 different title holders and then to a king and never dare to go against their word?

Regardless of whether that is the case, if you want to go into the details, they have all been fleshed out before, but it wouldn't hurt to rehash what you already know.

a) All of those killed were seen as corrupt or morally compromised in some way, including Balewa, from a certain political (not ethnic, some AG Yorubas could have seen him the same way) perspective

b) The killings of the relatives of the targets or those that did not resist arrest were a result of the brutality of the coup (such as killing Akintola's nephew just for coming out of the house) and not merely for ethnic reasons.

c) The fact that the coup was already foiled by the time the "competent" or "honest" members (not Ifeajuna, for example) of the coup would have been able to kill the few lower priority Igbo targets that they had remaining out of their total hit list.





I believe I somewhat understand the insinuation that is being made here but correct me if I'm wrong. In the book Biafra: the Making of A Nation, the authors (Nwankwo and Ifejika), writing very much from that era and from an Igbo perspective, strangely present Balewa's response of "No" to the question of whether he would concede leadership of government to Zik as though there was actually something wrong or inappropriate or power hungry about Balewa's response to that strange question. So if the authors of that book, who were well educated, were biased enough to think that there was anything unjust or wrong or out of place in Balewa not conceding to Zik when Balewa had no obligation to do so if he felt he were indeed the (properly) elected prime minister, it's not hard to imagine that less intelligent and less educated individuals could distort this sort of biased sentiment into a much simpler "get rid of Balewa" idea, but once again I see politics, rather than ethnicity in this. In that simplistic "eliminate and replace Balewa with Zik if he doesn't concede power" idea it's not so much about having an Igbo replace Balewa because of the rigging. Rather, it's about having "Dr" Nnamdi Azikiwe, Zik of Africa, replace Balewa. There is a difference.

Whether or not there was a "replace Balewa with Zik idea" in the air among the coupists, I have to say that with regard to your unstated, implicit conjecture about the significance of this event with regard to the January 1966 coup, I don't see how realizing that Zik had such limited powers would spur Zik or his Igbo supporters in the military to conspire to brutally murder the obstacles to his power (Balewa and co.) and think Zik or somebody more appealing to Igbos could somehow replace him while everybody else sat and watched quietly.

If this is not what you are saying then I should point out that the fact that the military was forced to stand by while a possibly rigged in government was ushered in with the army subservient to this government, while Zik's attempt to call for fresh, more valid elections instead of swearing in Balewa was ignored, is a purely political motivation for trying to get Balewa removed, not an ethnic empowerment motivation. If the consequence of Balewa's elimination and removal would be the empowerment of Zik, then that still does not demonstrate that the motivation for getting rid of Balewa was to empower Igbos. If the argument is that if the NPC and NNDP alliance had not existed (considering point # 3 that you raised) then they would not have attempted to eliminate Balewa and/or more greatly empower Zik, then I would have to point out that that is actually a conjecture or "what if".

If you're actually insinuating that Zik was some co-conspirator (which I don't believe that you even believe) then I would have to point out that this man ceded power twice - once in choosing not to govern an independent Eastern Nigeria in 1957, and again in choosing not to form a coalition with AG in which he was the one actually doing the governing. Then of course, there is Zik's historical romance with the north in order to "unite the country" to consider. This blind enthrallment with the north even lead him to reach out to the north again in 1979. If he had a problem with the North in 1964/1965, and was chiefly interested in Igbo advancement/power, how do we explain his overtures to the north in 1979?


In John de St. Jorre's book on the civil war it mentions that he interviewed certain Igbo intellectuals who admitted that they had already thought about Eastern secession before the 1966 crisis and before Ojukwu even came on the scene and a few had even drafted up proposals and that a very large contributing factor to this was the extremely heated tussle over the replacement of Igbo vice chancellors with non-Igbo vice chancellors in universities in the Western region.

I only mention this "random" fact in the same way you've mentioned your other facts to make a counter-insinuation to the insinuation and implicit conjecture about the motivations of the coup that underlie your posting of this fact. It might not be obvious to others so I should probably just state my counter explicitly: Isn't it glaringly obvious that if the Igbo political and military elite had an issue with the shift of power away from Igbos due to the political realignment that it would actually have been far more in line with their interests and more easily attainable and less risky to pursue secession rather than attempt a military takeover of the country using a thinly stretched squad of primarily Igbo soldiers and then attempt to sustain that takeover?

This is not actually a fact and not even a theory, until you can provide convincing evidence of the Ifeajuna -> Zik tip. (Not Emmanuel Nwobosi, unless he can provide any proof for his allegation. Nwobosi was not even in the same "sub-group" of coup plotters as Ifeajuna, by his own admission, so how would he know?). I also want to know who claimed Ifeajuna and Zik were cousins, I haven't been able to find the source (not Omoigui, but the source) of that claim.


We can actually only conjecture about why Ifeajuna went to Okpara since both are not alive. You seem to be conjecturing about motivations or the significance of "parleying" with Okpara here without solid evidence. I can't recall Michael Okpara being held in any prison like Ademoyega and Ifeajuna after the first coup. I can't recall Okpara being detained or interrogated about the 1966 coup after the fall of Biafra or any other time afterward. I can't recall Michael Okpara being identified by the special branch report as being a possible suspect, coup ally, or mastermind. Perhaps you can explain this? If they wanted to pin somebody for being a key mastermind of a coup that was in line with UPGA interests, why not one of the most key people in UPGA? Yet nobody did. Not the coupists that confessed, not the federal government before or after the civil war. Nobody suggested any wrongdoing on his part, yet it would have been so easy to do so.

I also wonder why you don't mention that Fajuyi (military governor the West, Yoruba man) is known to have helped the coupists. What motivation would you read into that? A Yoruba + Igbo coup? Or would you here admit that even if Okpara was somehow involved (and there is still no evidence), it still could easily be a politically motivated coup, rather than an ethnically motivated coup?

I can take a crack at explaining it but you'll say it's all conjecture. Nevertheless, I think my view is reasonable enough.

Michael Okpara was UPGA. The coup was definitely in line with UPGA's interests, though there is no evidence that it was sponsored by UPGA. Ifeajuna went to Okpara for protection and/or advice now that he was a dead man after the coup had failed, thinking he would find a sympathizer in the man. Now was Okpara (doctor/politician) supposed to somehow arrest Ifeajuna (soldier) while Ifeajuna was there? Ifeajuna then left upon failing to get any protection or guarantees for his safety. It's that simple to me.

And once again, what you posted doesn't even prove or demonstrate an association or intent without an insinuation or conjecture ("parleying" with an ally, for instance) applied to it.


Nzeogwu's words are not to the effect that it was an Igbo coup but more in line with stating that those who bungled the coup in the south were sentimental and didn't have the ruthlessness to see their responsibilities through. Nzeogwu got into a heated argument with somebody who pointed out the ethnic pattern of the killings while the coup was still going on. He would not then go and state for no reason that it was a partially ethnically motivated coup later when he had blatantly said otherwise around the time of doing the actual killing.

Please tell me what Emmanuel Nwobosi said that could be interpreted as acknowledging that there was an ethnic undertone. I was under the impression that he said that Ifeajuna failed the other coupists.

spyder880:

I am preparing to keep 4 trips of sand, 6 trips of stone, 150 bags of cement on site before the deck, it may be enough, it may need a little more or less than that.

Fhemmmy:

Yes i know . . . how many rooms do you have there?

spyder880:

My hostel is a 22 room face me I face you, I just fell for the corner plot.