scholes0:


Obi is Igbo of course, but the origin is Benin. Otherwise you would have to show communities outside of Anioma and closely related communities where the Ezes bear Obi as the title.
Your cooked up explanation does not explain what is shown in the attached picture one bit. Your argument is like saying because the rulers of Issele Uku were Ogies as first before they became Obis, then the town's monarchy didn't come from benin. Mr Ochei it is clear that you are making things up along the way. But kwantinuuu

Ti Ugbodu han, oluku mi.

Swashy4:



WELL ARGUING WITH A YORUBA MAN WON'T PRODUCE ANY POSITIVE RESULT

IF YOU LIKE GO TO ALL THE SITES WRITTEN BY YOUR FELLOW TOWNS MEN,IT WONT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE ODINANIS ARE PROUDLY ANIOMA AND PROUDLY IGBO. WE SHARE NO RELATIONSHIP AND NEVER WILL ACCEPT A YORUBA IDENTITY.

scholes0:


Yen yen yen.....
You can be anything you like now, nobody cares, I can be British next year if I want to - but history will always be history.
Ndo.

Swashy4:


KEEP YOUR PERSONAL HISTORY IN YOUR POCKET. EVEN YOUR VILLAGE HISTORY,YOU CAN SWALLOW IT. BUT YOU CANT TELL ME MINE.
UWC.

scholes0:


I won't be surprised if you are one of the quarrelling parties in that village.
lol

Swashy4:



YOU ARE NOT MAKING A POINT. THE FIRST RULERS WERE WARRIORS THAT WERE SENT BY THE OBA TO CAPTURE THE IGBOS OF UGBODU,BUT ON GETTING THERE DECIDED TO SETTLE AND RULE THEM. IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIER TENURE THE EDOS TOOK OVER FOR A SHORT WHILE BEFORE THE IGBOS RECLAIMED THE THRONE. THIS IS EVEN NOT PECULIAR TO UGBODU,BUT THE WHOLE OF ANIOMA. EVEN THE LIST OF THE FIRST RULERS WAS MANIPULATED ITS NOT THAT LONG AND OBVIOUSLY NOT CIMPLETELY TRUE. SO WHY DID THE NAMES CHANGE TO EDO AND THEN BACK TO IGBO ...MAYBE THE WARRIORS GAVE THIER CHILDREN EDO NAMES,AND THE EDOS GAVE THIER CHILDREN IGBO NAMES

THE STOOL OF THE KING OF UGBODU IS FOR THE OBI. ANY OTHER KING COMES WITH HIS OWN TITTLE JUST LIKE THIS PRESENT 1. SO FIND SOMWWHERE ELSE TO POKE UR NOSE INTO .

EVEN THE HEAD OF ODINANI CLAN ,UKWUNZU,THE KING USES ONLY OBI.

AND BY THE WAY,OBI IS IGBO.....YOU CAN TAKE UR ARGUMENT ABT IT BEING BINI TO A DUNCE.

Swashy4:



UGBODU WAS NEVER FOUNDED BY YORUBAS. THERE WERE IGBOS ALREADY IN UGBODU BEFORE THE WARRIORS FROM AKURE ARRIVED AND CALLED THE IGBOS "OLUKUMI " WHICH MEANS MY FRIEND BECAUSE THEY WERE FRIENDLY AND WELCOMED THEM. THE NAME STUCK AND ALSO THE WARRIORS RULED UGBODU KIMGDOM FOR SOMETIME BEFRE THE OBA SENT PEOPLE AND TOOK OVER AMD THEN THE IGBOS. SO IGBO HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF THE FOUNDATION OF UGBODU. AND FOR THE NAME,UGBODU WAS JUST UGBODU WHICH HAS ITS OWN MEANING IN IGBO,OR UGBODU UNO. IT WAS THE YORUBAS THAT CALLED IT UGBODUMILA.

Swashy4:



UGBODU WAS NEVER FOUNDED BY YORUBAS. THERE WERE IGBOS ALREADY IN UGBODU BEFORE THE WARRIORS FROM AKURE ARRIVED AND CALLED THE IGBOS "OLUKUMI " WHICH MEANS MY FRIEND BECAUSE THEY WERE FRIENDLY AND WELCOMED THEM. THE NAME STUCK AND ALSO THE WARRIORS RULED UGBODU KIMGDOM FOR SOMETIME BEFRE THE OBA SENT PEOPLE AND TOOK OVER AMD THEN THE IGBOS. SO IGBO HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF THE FOUNDATION OF UGBODU. AND FOR THE NAME,UGBODU WAS JUST UGBODU WHICH HAS ITS OWN MEANING IN IGBO,OR UGBODU UNO. IT WAS THE YORUBAS THAT CALLED IT UGBODUMILA.

Olu317:
I doubt your claim as being from Ugbodumila. Perhaps, you are an Ibo man impersonating Olukumis. Even your king's spoke man, a Prince of the town ,who bore a Yoruba name attested to Yoruba ancestry. Are you truly for real?

bigfrancis21:


1000 likes for this. I don't think the name, 'ugbodu' is of Yoruba origin. I've seen people try to desperately assign 'Yoruba' meanings to the name when the name has just as many meanings in Igbo.

Second, I agree that the list of past kings in Ugbodu is obviously manipulated - it was not that long ago. The Olukwumi speakers in Delta state arrived no earlier than the early to mid 1800s, definitely no earlier than the 1800s, which explains why the language survived in bits till today. Save for westernization and the shift to English language, within two generations or three from the 1960s, the Olukwumis (Ilukwobis) may have completely assimilated.

Probz:


Ugbodo’s a bona-fide Igbo name. Nearly shares the same root as Ogwu-Ogun, Egwu and Ekiti/etiti. Whatever Yoruba equivalent exists can be broken down further in Igbo in a simpler form.

Swashy4:



Ofe mmanu,shut up. WE HAVE NEVER AND WILL NEVER REFER TO OURDELVES AS YORUBA. WE DONT SHARE ANY SIMILARITY BOTH IN TRADITION,CULTURE AND EVEN 80% OF OUR NAMES ARE IGBO COZ OF OUR IGBO INCEPTION AND FOUNDATION. DONT FLATTER YOURSELF,WE ARE NOT PART OF YOU. WE DONT EVEN KNOW ODUDUWA,NEITHER DO WE EAT AMALA AND EWEDU�..........ALTHOUGH AS I SAID BEFORE IGBOS WERE ALREADY ON GROUND BEFORE THE WARRIORS FRIM AKURE SENT BY THE OBA OF BENIN TO CAPTURE THE IGBOS CAME. AND EVEN STILL NON ACCEPTS BEING REFERRED TO AS YORUBA.

macof:
I would rather believe actual family friends of mine who are from Ugbodu, a chief and even the Oloza himself whom i have met than an imposter and troll on nairaland

prolog2:
Who else is getting tired about all this talk of migration ? Language similarity is not proof of migration. Yoruba guys need to stop claiming migration up and down, 200 years ago there was nothing such as yoruba, si calm down a bit. Igbo guys should calm down as well, you were not there to witness the events which you are recounting. All that is known is that Delta State in it's entirety was under the rule of the Oba of Benin. That makes them Edo in my book.

morpheus24:


Beg your pardon any linguist or anthropologist knows that there is a correlation between migration and linguistic/cultural similarities. The whole Bantu migrations are based on this phenomena.

prolog2:
linguists are not historians, it is not their craft to tell you about migration. You don't ask astronomists to tell you about medicine, do you ?

morpheus24:


A good part of this argument is as well based on "Oral" history so a "historian" is going by the best information available to him, therefore his version of history is not infallible.

Linguists and anthropologists are technically 'historians" depending on the "context" you are using these professional qualifications.

Again a linguist can use language similarities to construct or deconstruct ethnic and cultural affiliations as well as migration patterns. If you need clarification, just ask

prolog2:
First of all, oral history is not history at all. History requires written or documents which were written in the same period as what they describe

prolog2:

Linguists study language, they are not historian. Confusing linguists with anthropologists is a very quacky thing to do. It seems you already have a predetermined conclusion and you will use every ruse to convince that you are right rather than prove your claim[/b]which you can't because you are wrong. Archeological findings are the foundations of prehistory and can also be used to help during historical research. But when there is no text or drawing, you just can't call it history. Next time you talk to a guy you don't know, try to sound less condescending, unless you have a Nobel price or a Fields medal.

prolog2:

Who else is getting tired about all this talk of migration? Language similarity is not proof of migration.

morpheus24:


Semantics. Oral history is history but should not be misconstrued as written or recorded history.





Point 1[/b]: A "HISTORIAN" is a "loose" term for someone who gathers, preserves, interprets and comments on "credible information" from the past and present particularly concerning human events and activity. The discipline is not independent of itself and requires the input of other areas of expertise in its research or analysis. Ergo a linguist can be considered a historian depending on the "context" in which the language analysis is presented. If that observation flies over your head well I really can't help you with that.

Point 2 Your claim below:



Point 3:[/b] My claim restated: "Beg your pardon any linguist or anthropologist knows that there is a correlation between migration and linguistic/cultural similarities. The whole Bantu migrations are based on this phenomena"

Point 4: Proof of claim_Case in point. The bantu expansion_ a "HISTORICAL" reconstruction of migratory patterns of people in Africa with evidence based on linguistic patterns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion

Point 5: Condescending is the least of my concerns, proving a point is much more fun. This is not my first trip round the block concerning such matters.

PS. You can take that noble peace prize and shove it up where the sun don't shine. I am not concerned with such trivial accolades bestowed upon man to stroke his ego. I am more concerned with Fact.

prolog2:
I am not interested in back and forths with you or anyone on nairaland. So this is my last reply to you, you can later on add a huge comment[pretending to prove whatever and then praise your ego for winning whatever. I am not playing a game contrary to you. In my book a historians is a guy who studied history in a credible University and wrote a PhD thesis on the subject. History is a science with it's logics and rules. I am not interested in définitions more or less from dictionaries, nor am I interested in non scientific semantics. Once again, your talk about the Bantu and linguists proves absolutely nothing since as I stated, linguists are not historians ! They can have a hypothesis, but still they aren't historians ! History is not based on language similarities, English speaking Indians didn't migrate to India from the UK. Now you can have your comment and be as disrespectful and condescending as you want, I have messaged you for the last time.

FisifunKododada:
Yorubas in the heart of anioma is a fact. No need to debate this. Thank you.

prolog2:
First of all, oral history is not history at all. History requires written or documents which were written in the same period as what they describe. Linguists study language, they are not historians. Confusing linguists with anthropologists is a very quacky thing to do. It seems you already have a predetermined conclusion and you will use every ruse to convince that you are right rather than prove your claim which you can't because you are wrong. Archeological findings are the foundations of prehistory and can also be used to help during historical research. But when there is no text or drawing, you just can't call it history. Next time you talk to a guy you don't know, try to sound less condescending, unless you have a Nobel price or a Fields medal.

prolog2:
I am not interested in back and forths with you or anyone on nairaland. So this is my last reply to you, you can later on add a huge comment pretending to prove whatever and then praise your ego for winning whatever. I am not playing a game contrary to you. In my book a historians is a guy who studied history in a credible University and wrote a PhD thesis on the subject. History is a science with it's logics and rules. I am not interested in définitions more or less from dictionaries, nor am I interested in non scientific semantics. Once again, your talk about the Bantu and linguists proves absolutely nothing since as I stated, linguists are not historians ! They can have a hypothesis, but still they aren't historians ! History is not based on language similarities, English speaking Indians didn't migrate to India from the UK. Now you can have your comment and be as disrespectful and condescending as you want, I have messaged you for the last time.

prolog2:
Who else is getting tired about all this talk of migration ? Language similarity is not proof of migration. Yoruba guys need to stop claiming migration up and down, 200 years ago there was nothing such as yoruba, si calm down a bit. Igbo guys should calm down as well, you were not there to witness the events which you are recounting. All that is known is that Delta State in it's entirety was under the rule of the Oba of Benin. That makes them Edo in my book.

baby124:

Your argument is absurd. Peoples root are what matter not who their overlords are. By the way, most of those groups migrated through Benin to where they are today. There is no proof that Benin controlled them except small pockets of towns here and there. Just like Igbo do not control them but have an influence on their culture because they live close to them. In case of Igboland, Benin influence stops at Onitcha, not the whole Igboland. The Benin were not that big in number to control all the areas you ascribe to them. Also your absurd argument will claim the English are Roman now, the Scottish are British and other false conclusions. It’s the root that matters not the empire. Empires rise and fall but peoples identity lives on!

prolog2:

Proof of my claims:

precolonial maps of Benin Kingdom:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b77595185.r=Benin?rk=21459;2

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b7759521n.r=Benin?rk=21459;2

An other map of Benin made in the 17th century once again:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b530530714.r=Benin?rk=214593;2

An other map of Benin from the 17th century:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8595583b.r=Benin?rk=193134;0

This one date to the 19th century:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8469390z/f1.item.r=Benin.zoom

I didn't know you went back in time to conduct a precolonial census. Also I recall that rome colonized the entire western europe (minus parts of germany) and north africa and most arab states, yet its current population is less than 3 million.
The one thing your brain can't comprehend is that I am not claiming any sort of tribal superiority which seems to be the basis of your talk. I couldn't care less about your tribal inferiority complex. All I claim is that these people were citizens of Benin Kingdom, subjects of the Oba of Benin Kingdom and therefor Edo ! (I also noticed that you don't seem to grasp the distinction between Benin Kingdom and its capital Benin City)
Now enjoy this music and leave me alone, I don't dwell in rewriting history to suit my ego unlike you:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w0X1bSrUHs

baby124:

Benin territory has always always been what and where Edo State is as of today. Some migrated out of Benin and ended up in delta and Igboland. Just like the Yoruba’s. Which is normal for human survival. Humans migrate! It doesn’t mean they the benin’s Controlled the locations, it just means there were Benin people living in those areas and their ancestry had influence of the people today. That is why some people with obvious Igbo names will claim they are not Igbo.

The obaship Of Benin is a Yoruba Obaship and they followed the exploration trends of the Oyo’s and the Ife’s whose influence is as far away as The Gambia. Do we now claim that all Gambians are Yoruba’s? Do we now draw our map to include the whole of West Africa as Yoruba territory Rome was very large and specialized in adopting foreigners into its military to achieve that feat. It was defeated by those foreigners who fought back and fought for sovereignty of their various lands. Even Rome was spread too thin after a while and they fell. Benin that is not even up to the population of a Calvary of Romans is being given all these accolades. The truth is even the Lagos that they came to, I have read accounts that they were taken to Lagos by the Alaafin of Oyo and other Oyo emissaries to get a share of Lagos because the Benin obaship were their relatives. It is in the family history and story of the Onikoyi’s and how they came to be in Lagos. The Onikoyi’s were part of that group of people that migrated to Lagos with the Alaafin and the Oba of Benin on an exploration exercise but the Onikoyi’s stayed behind. While Alaafin and Oba of Benin went back but sent their trusted chiefs to oversee their properties. So it’s apparent that they were working hand in hand.

Swashy4:



WELL ARGUING WITH A YORUBA MAN WON'T PRODUCE ANY POSITIVE RESULT

IF YOU LIKE GO TO ALL THE SITES WRITTEN BY YOUR FELLOW TOWNS MEN,IT WONT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE ODINANIS ARE PROUDLY ANIOMA AND PROUDLY IGBO. WE SHARE NO RELATIONSHIP AND NEVER WILL ACCEPT A YORUBA IDENTITY.