|
Post by isalegangan on Dec 13, 2015 23:18:42 GMT
I'm registered. I saw where a link was posted. You might want to remove it sha. But, I appreciate being made aware of an alternative to the other place.
Great job on the other thread we won't mention, young Aare! I have add'l comments but I'll bite my tongue for now.
|
|
|
Post by IrekeOnibudo on Dec 16, 2015 0:13:56 GMT
It is often said that second world not only deepened the commitment of various European countries to the welfare of their citizens but also produced new and lasting alliances like NATO.
Now armed with the knowledge that war can also lead to greater cohesion, once underlying difference have been resolved; is it possible to appraise the modern Yoruba identity objectively, without referencing the Kiriji War? I am asking this question as someone whose great-grandfather (an Egba soldier) found life-long companionship in an Ilesha princess – who was also captured and held as a prisoner during the latter stages of the war.
Given the spread of conflicting interests which became amplified after the demise of Oyo Empire; would identity politics not pose a greater challenge today, if the Kiriji war has not been triggered by antagonistic contradictions between various Yoruba groups?
#justThinkingAloud
|
|
|
Post by Shymmex on Dec 16, 2015 0:25:41 GMT
It is often said that second world not only deepened the commitment of various European countries to the welfare of their citizens but also produced new and lasting alliances like NATO. Now armed with the knowledge that war can also lead to greater cohesion, once underlying difference have been resolved; is it possible to appraise the modern Yoruba identity objectively, without referencing the Kiriji War? I asking this question as someone whose great-grandfather (an Egba soldier) found life-long companionship in an Ilesha princess – who was also captured and held as a prisoner during the latter stages of the war. Given the spread of conflicting interests which became amplified after the demise of Oyo Empire; would identity politics not pose a greater challenge today, if the Kiriji war has not been triggered by antagonistic contradictions between various Yoruba groups? #justThinkingAloud Interesting input. I'll like to ask you a few questions, Sir: 1). If there had been no Soviet Union, and subsequently Russia, would there have been a NATO? Or let's say Hitler never attacked the Soviet Union and they had been defeated together with the Nazis by the allied forces - would there have been any need for NATO? 2). If Oyo empire hadn't collapsed and there was no power vacuum to be exploited by Ibadan and Ijaiye - would there be the same type of cohesion amongst Yoruba today?
|
|
|
Post by IrekeOnibudo on Dec 16, 2015 1:12:49 GMT
It is often said that second world not only deepened the commitment of various European countries to the welfare of their citizens but also produced new and lasting alliances like NATO. Now armed with the knowledge that war can also lead to greater cohesion, once underlying difference have been resolved; is it possible to appraise the modern Yoruba identity objectively, without referencing the Kiriji War? I asking this question as someone whose great-grandfather (an Egba soldier) found life-long companionship in an Ilesha princess – who was also captured and held as a prisoner during the latter stages of the war. Given the spread of conflicting interests which became amplified after the demise of Oyo Empire; would identity politics not pose a greater challenge today, if the Kiriji war has not been triggered by antagonistic contradictions between various Yoruba groups? #justThinkingAloud Interesting input. I'll like to ask you a few questions, Sir: 1). If there had been no Soviet Union, and subsequently Russia, would there have been a NATO? Or let's say Hitler never attacked the Soviet Union and they had been defeated together with the Nazis by the allied forces - would there have been any need for NATO? 2). If Oyo empire hadn't collapsed and there was no power vacuum to be exploited by Ibadan and Ijaiye - would there be the same type of cohesion amongst Yoruba today? Bruv Shymmex , My humble take is provided in-line 1). If there had been no Soviet Union, and subsequently Russia, would there have been a NATO? Or let's say Hitler never attacked the Soviet Union and they had been defeated together with the Nazis by the allied forces - would there have been any need for NATO? Response: I think given the nature of the world back then, and the acquisitive character of European states which still owned many colonies around the world, it is conceivable that some type of security alliance would have been formed. Remember now that even before NATO, there had been the Franco-Belgian Accord of 1920 and other alliances geared towards protecting clearly identified national interests.
2). If Oyo empire hadn't collapsed and there was no power vacuum to be exploited by Ibadan and Ijaiye - would there be the same type of cohesion amongst Yoruba today? Response: On this one, my view is that all empires are inherently designed to fall. With assured certainty, system-failure occupies pride of place in every empire's life cycle. We can put this down to the initial formation process amid unresolved contradictions, we can locate it as a stage in evolution, but what is important to note is that; once a threshold is breached, terminal decline sets in.
Like so many other empires that have fallen, Oyo - which was never monolithic in a cultural or religious sense - was also going to fall at some point. That the resulting power vacuum got exploited by Ibadan and Ijaiye in the aftermath, was merely incidental. What I mean is that, the crack in pre-existing fault-lines could have been triggered by any number of factors.
With the foregoing in mind, if we agree that some of the internal contradictions were sufficiently acute to have been considered antagonistic; in my view, this would have foreclosed any other option safe for war. Non-antagonistic contradictions can be resolved through dialogue, via the medium of national conferences, and by drawing up binding accords...etc. But antagonistic contradictions pose a completely different prospect.
|
|
|
Post by Shymmex on Dec 16, 2015 1:20:43 GMT
IrekeOnibudoInteresting input, Sir. I want to post a comprehensive reply but I won't be able to do that now cos I'm past my bed time. But I'll definitely post a reply in the morning, or later in the day.
|
|
|
Post by Shymmex on Dec 16, 2015 10:14:50 GMT
Interesting input. And I'll like to ask you a few questions, Sir: 1). If there had been no Soviet Union, and subsequently Russia, would there have been a NATO? Or let's say Hitler never attacked the Soviet Union and they had been defeated together with the Nazis by the allied forces - would there have been any need for NATO? 2). If Oyo empire hadn't collapsed and there was no power vacuum to be exploited by Ibadan and Ijaiye - would there be the same type of cohesion amongst Yoruba today? Bruv Shymmex , My humble take is provided in-line 1). If there had been no Soviet Union, and subsequently Russia, would there have been a NATO? Or let's say Hitler never attacked the Soviet Union and they had been defeated together with the Nazis by the allied forces - would there have been any need for NATO? Response: I think given the nature of the world back then, and the acquisitive character of European states which still owned many colonies around the world, it is conceivable that some type of security alliance would have been formed. Remember now that even before NATO, there had been the Franco-Belgian Accord of 1920 and other alliances geared towards protecting clearly identified national interests.
2). If Oyo empire hadn't collapsed and there was no power vacuum to be exploited by Ibadan and Ijaiye - would there be the same type of cohesion amongst Yoruba today? Response: On this one, my view is that all empires are inherently designed to fall. With assured certainty, system-failure occupies pride of place in every empire's life cycle. We can put this down to the initial formation process amid unresolved contradictions, we can locate it as a stage in evolution, but what is important to note is that; once a threshold is breached, terminal decline sets in.
Like so many other empires that have fallen, Oyo - which was never monolithic in a cultural or religious sense - was also going to fall at some point. That the resulting power vacuum got exploited by Ibadan and Ijaiye in the aftermath, was merely incidental. What I mean is that, the crack in pre-existing fault-lines could have been triggered by any number of factors.
With the foregoing in mind, if we agree that some of the internal contradictions were sufficiently acute to have been considered antagonistic; in my view, this would have foreclosed any other option safe for war. Non-antagonistic contradictions can be resolved through dialogue, via the medium of national conferences, and by drawing up binding accords...etc. But antagonistic contradictions pose a completely different prospect.
Interesting points. However, without the boogeyman which the Soviet Union became from the western perspective, coupled with the Warsaw Pact countries - and the need for capitalism and socialism to be at the opposite sides of the divide - would NATO have been as broad as it is today? There are actually certain school of thoughts who believe NATO had served its purpose after the collapse of both the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries, until recently, when a new enemy had to be created in Russia. Don't forget that even before the 2nd world war, there were alliances like: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Munich Agreement et al, yet that didn't stop them from going to war.
|
|
|
Post by Shymmex on Dec 16, 2015 10:53:38 GMT
IrekeOnibudo , The page is acting funny cos I'm mobile. So I have decided to cut my post in two. On Oyo and what happened subsequently. Yes, I agree that empires are built to fail and that has been the case of all empires from the beginning of time. We can go from ancient Egypt, to Nubia, to Cush, to the Greeks, to the Persians, to Songhai, to Rome, to Ottoman, to Iberia, and to the British empire - and it is basically the same. Also, when empires start to decline and subsequently fail, there is always a power vacuum left behind. And that often creates chaos and disorderliness...like what happened in Europe after the vandals destroyed Rome. I'll use the soliloquy above as a preamble to my next questions: 1). Was Kiriji war actually a war of antagonistic contradictions or independent states by virtue of Oyo's collapse fighting against insubordination by new the powers (Ijaye and Ibadan)? 2). If Ijaiye and Ibadan had taken the dialogue route (there were instances where the Awujale and Owo pleaded with Ibadan not to attack certain groups, but Ibadan never listened, hence Ijebu stopped selling arms to Ibadan and despite supporting Ife, with Ife on Ibadan's side - Ijebus and Ibadan were at loggerheads), and allowed these groups to maintain their independence - would there have been any need for the war?
|
|
|
Post by Honorebu on Dec 23, 2015 15:29:18 GMT
Shymmex please create a new thread titled Yoruba Wars
I want to move these posts there since the thread is yours
|
|
|
Post by Shymmex on Dec 24, 2015 20:44:45 GMT
Shymmex please create a new thread titled Yoruba Wars
I want to move these posts there since the thread is yours Ok, bruddah.
|
|