Stats: 3,182,062 members, 7,916,100 topics. Date: Friday, 09 August 2024 at 03:20 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Rossupti's Profile / Rossupti's Posts
![]() |
Omihanifa: Not everyone is a self-hater like you that will play for ANY club in Europe over a club in his own country. 61 Likes 1 Share |
![]() |
Shiver99: Where is the EVIDENCE of this Igbo 'unity' before the colonial interregnum? There is a LOT of evidence of 'absence of unity' however. The numerous wars within Igbo speaking areas are a case in point. Heck, one clan regarded another clan 2 kilometres away as a totally different country. So what 'unity' are you talking about? People sharing a common ancestry generally do not go to war against each other (and most certainly not at the slightest provocation). Read what happened in Achebe's Things Fall Apart, which is a historical novel that is anthropologically accurate. Ogbuefi Ezeugo, an elder of Umuofia, relating an incident involving the nearby village of Mbaino, said to a crowd of 10,000 Umuofians, “These sons of wild animals have dared to murder a daughter of Umuofia.”…And in a clear unemotional voice he told Umuofia how their daughter had gone to market at Mbaino and had been killed." [Ogbuefi Ezeugo] threw his head down and gnashed his teeth, and allowed a murmur of suppressed anger to sweep the crowd. When he began again, the anger on his face was gone and in its place a sort of smile hovered, more terrible and more sinister than the anger. And in a clear unemotional voice he told Umuofia how their daughter had gone to market at Mbaino and had been killed. That woman, said Ezeugo, was the wife of Ogbuefi Udo, and he pointed to a man who sat near him with a bowed head. The crowd then shouted with anger and thirst for blood.'' I mean, the people of Umuofia were ready to go to WAR with the neighbouring clan, based on a relatively mundane incident. The only thing that prevented a descent to bloodshed was Okonkwo, the Umuofian, 'travelling' to Mbaino and demanding that they surrender a virgin and a young man in order to avoid war with Umuofia, to which they complied. The young man, Ikemefuna, was later killed in Umuofia in recompense. This kind of thing went on across all the Igbo-speaking areas. There was no 'unity'. The united Igbo 'tribe' you have today is a 100% colonial, British creation. Same as the other 'tribes' in Nigeria. 2 Likes |
![]() |
More supporting evidence: “Tribal” and/or ethnic identities have never been primordial and immutable, in Africa or elsewhere, and it is possible in many cases to trace sets of historically and socially contingent processes that have brought these modern identities into being.’ ‘In a number of cases, African “tribes” were the (conscious or unconscious) creations of colonial administrators and professionals, including ethnographers, with other interests in colonial government. The motivations behind this manipulation of identities were various; they included administrative convenience and the establishment of easily governable entities that could be controlled and taxed, divide-and-conquer strategies, and the creation of power bases by local and foreign elites. To these ends, communities were divided or forcibly amalgamated and “tribes” created out of whole cloth. Even languages, the “powerful ethnic guidebook . . . essentially complete” of Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994:23), were manipulated and modified to support the goals of both indigenous and foreign players in the processes of colonialism’ https://folukeafrica.com/essential-readings-on-the-problems-of-tribe/ |
![]() |
. . ''Recent research has revealed that modern African ethnicity is a social construction of the colonial period through the reactions of pre-colonial societies to the social, economic, cultural and political forces of colonialism'' - ETHNICITY, PATRONAGE AND THE AFRICAN STATE: THE POLITICS OF UNCIVIL NATIONALISM BRUCE J BERMAN https://watermark.silverchair.com/97-388-305.pdf |
![]() |
. . Further supporting text for those with working brains: ''Pre-colonial Africans often had several relevant identities between which they shifted and that were highly fluid (Iliffe 1979, p. 318). ‘Ethnic groups’ may have existed, although they were not consciously perceived as such, as ethnicity itself as a concept emerged only out of the encounter with Europeans. If at all, kinship affiliations were not the only frame of reference (Comaroff 1997).'' ''Identities and the colonial past in Kenya and Tanzania BA dissertation by Laura-Catalina Althoff published as a CERS working paper on the MGR archive'' https://cers.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/97/2014/07/dissertation-on-Ethnicity-in-East-Africa-for-publishing-as-a-CERS-working-paper-Laura-Althoff.pdf |
![]() |
capitalzero: Dude. I'm not on your level. Please, go and debate your mates. 4 Likes |
![]() |
eagleu: My brother, Oyinbo dealt with us. They dealt with us to the point that even long after they left, the effects of their evil machinations reverberate across our lands. To the point that we see them today and smile, and consider them our friends, looking up to them, as we hate each other based on divisions they created.. This is why I tell people that the payback from heaven to the Causasian race will be HUGE when it comes. Watch and see. |
![]() |
Ezemust: Nothing is impossible with KNOWLEDGE. |
![]() |
Making tribe In Africa, as in the US, the ruling powers faced the challenge of subjugating black people. [In Africa], however, racial strategies were unsuited for the task at hand since a black majority with a united race consciousness would pose a threat to white minority control. European powers therefore turned towards a tribal strategy of creating and enforcing divisions in the majority. They entrenched the “tribe” as the basis of social, economic and political life through a policy known as indirect rule. Before the colonial era, African ethnicities had been highly fluid and malleable phenomena. They did not exist as corporate entities. Boundaries were really shades of grey. People switched back and forth between groups. And, for the most part, no central authority enforced a shared set of laws through a monopoly of violence. As historian Terence Ranger writes in The Invention of Tradition: “Almost all recent studies of nineteenth-century pre-colonial Africa have emphasized that far from there being a single ‘tribal’ identity, most Africans moved in and out of multiple identities, defining themselves at one moment subject to this chief, at another moment as a member of that cult, at another moment as part of this clan, and at yet another moment as an initiate in that professional guild… the boundaries of the ‘tribal’ polity and the hierarchies of authority within them did not define conceptual horizons of Africans.” Tribe, in other words, was not an exclusive political category before the onset of colonial rule. Ethnolinguistic groups – people who shared a language and ethnicity – did not necessarily constitute a political grouping known as tribe. As the eminent scholar Mahmood Mamdani puts it in Define and Rule: “Did tribe exist [in Africa] before colonialism? If we understand by tribe an ethnic group with a common language, it did. But tribe as an administrative entity that distinguishes between natives and non-natives and systematically discriminates in favor of the former against the latter – defining access to land and participation in local governance and rules for settling disputes according to tribal identity – certainly did not exist before colonialism.” This messy and fluid picture was untenable to European intentions. What followed then was a process of legally defining and enforcing tribes, identities and customary laws. An alliance between scientific authority and political power, as in America, was needed for the task. What the biologist did for the racialisation project in the US, the anthropologist did for the tribalisation project in Africa. Ethnolinguistic groups were legally defined as tribes, becoming legal and administrative categories for the first time. Disparate communities were collapsed into new creations of Shona, Yoruba, Luhya, Igbo. Even multiethnic states such as Ndebele in southern Africa were defined as a tribe, while some groups, like the Yaaku of East Africa, were simply left out and forced to integrate into adjacent demarcations. Colonies were divided into administrative units that approximated boundaries between the defined tribes, and a “native authority” was put in charge to enforce customary law by force. Where a chief was identifiable, the British brought them into the colonial administrative structure and gave them absolute autocratic power. Where no chiefs existed, they invented them. The French, by contrast, destroyed all indigenous authorities and planted new administrative cadres but with the same function: to enforce customary law by brute force. Customary law was also a continuously creative definition; the customary was tweaked and nurtured to conform to European objectives of domination. Far from “going overboard in their quest for unity”, Europe was very deliberate in its cultivation of divisive tribal nationalisms in Africa. Cross-group interaction and freedom of movement across “homelands” was heavily controlled. Any attempt to build cross-ethnic political movements or socioeconomic organisations was met with swift repression. https://africanarguments.org/2019/08/colonialism-tribal-ethnic-politics-africa/ 2 Likes |
![]() |
capitalzero: You don't have to contribute if you lack grounding in the subject. Just learn, or go and research properly, before contributing. Having 'different kingdoms' has nothing to do with the topic. Saying ''go and read Samuel Johnson'' throws no light on the subject either. If you have a specific quote or research from his work, post it here. 5 Likes |
![]() |
There Were No 'Tribes' In Nigeria Before Colonialism. Discuss. Before the British interruption of our existence, there was no concept of belonging to a 'tribe' or an 'ethnic group' in Nigeria. The idea that speaking Igbo made you an 'Igbo man' was non-existent. The idea that speaking Yoruba made you a 'Yoruba man' was non-existent. The idea that speaking Hausa made you a 'Hausa man' was non-existent. What identified you was your ancestry. NOT the language you spoke. An Egba man did not regard himself as being of one group as an Ijebu man, or a man from Kwara, even though they all spoke the Yoruba language. Likewise an Arochukwu man did not consider himself of the same ''Igbo tribe'' as a man from Okigwe or Onitsha. This was why in the pre-colonial era, we had many WARS within those groups. They did NOT regard themselves as single, united entities with shared ancestry. Because they were not. It was the BRITISH who invented the idea that all those who spoke one language belonged to one ''tribe'' OR ''ethnic group''. They did this in order to create BLOCS OF DIVISION among previously integrated, fluid peoples. (Divide and rule) Sociologically and anthropologically, the language-based 'tribe' concept made no sense, because there was so much migration in precolonial times that one group of Igbo speakers could migrate to an area peopled by Yoruba speakers, and within a generation or two, they would turn Yoruba speakers themselves, and forget all about the Igbo language, and vice versa. This happened ALL OVER 'Nigeria' countless times over many centuries. There are many people today who consider themselves 'Yoruba', who actually have their true ancestry traceable to Eastern Nigeria. Just as there are many who call themselves 'Igbo' today, whose ancestors migrated from Yoruba speaking territories, less than 200 or 300 years ago. It is time we DITCH the COLONIAL INVENTION called ''tribe''. IT IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY MEANINGLESS, AND A FRAUDULENT COLONIAL IMPOSITION. 2 Likes |
![]() |
Resurrection212: Igbos no get sense. Anybody that waves the tribalist flag at them, they follow like mumu. Kanu is in London using their IPOB money to buy houses and Italian designer wear, while fomenting trouble in the East. |
![]() |
calcal: Accept what? Your LIES? What statistics have you provided to show that ''more foreign firms prefer Ghana to Nigeria''? Simply because one company called twitter opened an office in Ghana? Look dude, you can fool these little kids on Nairaland who don't know left from right. Not all of us, you here? Oloshi. |
![]() |
ThreeBlackBird: Well said. They are experts in fighting and hating each other. When oyinbo or Indian pass, dem go begin smile like cat with nine lives. |
![]() |
seanwilliam: Who is this empty-headed slave? |
![]() |
Ifiok21: Having vocal cords doesn't give you speech any more than having a dick means you know how to fck. You have to learn or be taught. |
![]() |
eagleu: lol |
![]() |
ngadaAwo: KEEP DREAMING. YOU DON'T DINE WITH A SNAKE AND TELL THE SNAKE NOT TO BITE YOUR CHILDREN. I KEEP SAYING THAT IGBOS HAVE NO COMMON SENSE. YORUBAS HAD PROBLEM WITH HERDSMEN. THEY JUMPED ON THEIR POLITICAL LEADERS AND FORCED THEM TO CREATE AMOTEKUN, AN ORGANISATION BACKED BY STATE POWER, WITH OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES. IGBOS HAD PROBLEM WITH HERDSMEN. THEY WENT INTO THE BUSH AND FORMED ESN WITH PROSCRIBED IPOB TERRORISTS. THE EASTERN GOVERNORS FORMED EBUBEAGU, AND NOW THE ESN IS THREATENING TO KILL IGBOS WHO JOIN THEIR OWN OFFICIAL, TAXPAYER FUNDED ORGANISATION. NOW THE WHOLE EAST IS TURNING TO A KILLING FIELD. IGBOS, WHEN WILL YOIU GET SENSE? ALWAYS SHOOTING YOURSELVES IN THE FOOT. |
![]() |
Ojiofor: Igbos are generally dumb and very easily deceived. People like Kanu understand that all you need to do is wave the tribalism flag and Igbos will rush to them. 1 Like |
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 70 |