Talk:Benin Expedition of 1897

Neutrality and tone of "Benin Preemptive Military Action" section

"Benin Strike Force"? Was that the terminology used by the Oba? Could Philip's party really be called an Army?

I was under the impression that the few military Officers were armed only with pistols. I may well be wrong but lets get some references in there and prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.55.170 (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

         The whole article has issues. Large blocks of text with no references, awkward repetition (it's obvious what the author wants to reader to remember) in the prose (Captain Gallwey (the British vice-Consul of Oil Rivers Protectorate) who were pushing for British annexation of the Benin Empire and the removal of the Oba. In March 1892, Henry Gallwey, the British Vice-Consul of Oil Rivers Protectorate ), and mind-reading (ie, without reference) that the British found something "irksome". This needs major clean-up, if not rewrite. Vygramul 16:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vygramul (talk • contribs)  

There are two different Punitive Expeditions

Does anyone mind if we put in something to the effect of, "This is not to be confused with the Punitive Expedition of 1917"? I was doing research about the 1917 expedition, and read all about this one, instead of my 1917 one, until just now, when I realized it was the wrong one.--ViolinGirl 23:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Human Sacrifice = Blood Libel

British imperial forces conquered Benin in order to secure the territory, resources, culture and labour for exploitation by the British empire. In general, tales of 'human sacrifice' are inherently ethnocentric and anti-Benin and simply serve as imperial propaganda - in effect a 'blood libel' against the Benin people. They certainly cannot be taken at face value.

Questions that need answering before such racist statements are acceptable:

1. What is the difference between 'human sacrifice' and 'lawful execution';

2. What is the difference between 'human sacrifice' and voluntarily 'ascending unto heaven'?;

3. What is the source and reliability of the account? Is it written by an informed Benin religious figure (who would know) or is it written by a British conquistador (who can be assumed to be completely ignorant - unless proven otherwise)?

4 What photographic or other material evidence exists of 'human sacrifice'?

5. What local sources are there, and how reliable are they?

How such so-called 'evidence' or 'sources' might be included: Unless claims of 'human sacrifice' can be verified by a practitioner, that is, somebody who can give an informed account of the religious justification of the practice, then they should be cited as mere claims, and the source of such claims made clear (if, for example, a British conquistador). Please do not use Wikipedia as an outlet for your Tarzan fantasies. Ackees (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

One word 'references' - find some then that support your theories Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ As an African person, I think that I can answer these questions for you

1. Human sacrifices are very different from 'lawful execution' human sacrifices are the killing of humans and or using their blood or body to appease the "gods" for these unlike lawful execution people used for these human sacrifices are a lot of times innocent and unsuspecting.

2. People used for human sacrifices are most time unsuspecting therefore they are not "voluntarily ascending unto heaven".

3. I ask you this, what is the source of reliability of the account that all the continents used to be 1 island Pangaea or that Columbus actually discovered America (I am not stating you believe in these I'm just giving examples) exactly there is none, a lot of believed stories don't have sources of reliability but in the Benin Expedition the people saying this are eyewitnesses they know what they are saying

4. There is so much proof that exists of Human sacrifices don't go around judging people when you don't know what you are talking about

5. Like I said there is so much proof that exists of human sacrifices just go and research on it

What you have displayed was ignorance and an attempt to seem above approved research, people who disagree with you are not racist nor are they dumb on the contrary your motive was correct but your research was non-existent. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have used references for my edits. But, you have failed to address the editing principles outlined here.Ackees (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the philosophy of "human sacrifice"; it is an established fact, through credible sources (such as this one: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4390897?seq=11) that human sacrifice occurred in Benin. Your edits are anti-European propaganda that seeks to minimize the unflattering history of Benin while emphasizing and fabricating anti-British declarations. Anyone that disagrees with your ideas you label "racist" and any source that contradicts your ideas you label as not having been "critically evaluated." This is POV bias at its worse. One look at your edit history and it is very clear why you were recently blocked from editing. You are out of control. If you want to have a discussion about the philosophy of human sacrifice, then Wikipedia is not the place for that. Wikipedia is here to report what has already been established, not what you think should be established. Human sacrifice was practised in Benin, and your editing of this article and others demonstrates an attempt to cover this fact up. ElliotJoyce (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)sockpuppet of Vost

Actually "ElliotJoyce", if you had bothered to read past the first page of the jstor article you provided a link to, you would have seen that the article actually emphasizes that human sacrifice was mostly limited to criminals, was not actually of great extent, and that much of what the British had seen in 1897 had actually been misinterpreted since they assumed some things were sacrifices that weren't. Try and actually read an article past the first page before citing it in the mistaken belief that it supports your argument rather than that of your opponent. Benin did not have the luxury of plagiarizing Judaic ethics/morality like most of the European countries that adopted Christianity, but the ethics Benin did have never involved human sacrifice on any grand scale like that of the Aztecs, and there are multiple quotes from European visitors to Benin from before its conquest that state that they executed mostly criminals in sacrifices. Try and actually learn about historical places before commenting on them. Ciao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.246.49 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Death toll/casualties?

Are there any known sources for how many people died due to the punitive expedition? Estimates? There is no mention of anyone dying, although the article cites that hundreds of troops "reached Benin City after 10 days of bitter fighting". One would assume this would have left some people dead.... I think this is a major gap in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.213.65 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Benin Expedition of 1897. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904231522/http://www2.hu-berlin.de:80/orient/nae/nigcoast2.htm to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/orient/nae/nigcoast2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030801230041/http://www.arm.arc.co.uk:80/lootingBenin.html to http://www.arm.arc.co.uk/lootingBenin.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004105115/http://www.arm.arc.co.uk:80/art/beninNewsClip.gif to http://www.arm.arc.co.uk/art/beninNewsClip.gif
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615032008/http://www.arm.arc.co.uk/CRBBinfo4.html to http://www.arm.arc.co.uk/CRBBinfo4.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415164632/http://www.hillsdalesites.org/personal/hstewart/Documents/(1897)%20Benin%20(Bacon).pdf to http://www.hillsdalesites.org/personal/hstewart/Documents/(1897)%20Benin%20(Bacon).pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Benin Massacre?

Surely there is something wrong with the text of this section at present. Either there were 250 disguised soldiers with their weapons hidden or there were only a couple of officers pistols- 250 soldiers do not travel without their weapons.

IceDragon64 (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Length of Benin Wall

There is the claim spread overs everal articles that the Benin walls (sometimes all walls of the Kingdom, her just the city wall) were 4 times longer than the Great Wall of China which is obviously not true. (the walls of Benin alleged to have been 16,000 km long would make the Great China Wall just be 4,000 km which is not the case). It all is referred to an article in the New Scientist (Pearce, Fred. African Queen. New Scientist, 11 September 1999, Issue 2203) which is wrong in this quotation. Kipala (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The present article implies that a small British expedition destroyed 16 000 km of earthworks.... Megalophias (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

related

I am reminded of the Anglo-Aro and -Asante wars. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Bombing

I cannot access the book by Hicks, but the quoted section refers to the destruction of villages by air, and bombing. Is this really referring to the 1897 expedition? Megalophias (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

———————————————————————————————————————————–——————————————————————

CONTROVERSY - IGUE FESTIVAL The text reads: "Controversy There has much debate of why James Phillips set out on the mission to Benin without much weaponry.[3] Some have argued he was going on a peaceful mission. Such commentators argue that the message from the Oba that his festival would not permit him to receive European visitors touched the humanitarian side of Phillips's character because of an incorrect assumption that the festival included human sacrifice." With the subsequent note 27 saying there was not human sacrifices at Igue festival. It is interesting to confer with this reading:

"Igue festival was celebrated with much pageantry [before colonial period] and animals like cows, goats, fowls, leopards and other animals were slaughtered to placate the spirits of the departed Obas and the numerous gods of the people (Ayeni, 1975). Human sacrifices were also made during the period of Igue festival. Infact, it is said that before the European Era, the number of human beings slaughtered during the period of Igue festival approximated in quantitative terms to that of the lesser animals (Ayeni, 1975). The festivals is a seven days event with the combination of nine major ceremonies viz; Otue-Ughieroba, Ugierhoba, Ughie iron, Utue Iguoba, Igue Oba, Igue irien, Ugie Emobo, Igue-wbioha, Igue Edohia and Ugie Ewere. These ceremonies carry on their tail performances that are both presentational and representational (Ayeni, 1975). It begins with the anointing of the Oba’s head with chalk signifying purity and the blood of the sacrificial animals slaughtered after which the Otue Ugierhoba which is an occasion when all the chiefs with individual groups of dancers go to the palace to greet and pray for the Oba in preparation for the subsequent ceremony – Ugierhoba. At this time, chiefs dress in their full ceremonial robes/ regalia according to their ranks (Infoguidenigeria, 2016). Thus, Ekpenede Idu is of the opinion that: The present day Igue festival is a shadow of its former glory and the present format of Igue is very different from that of 1896. The Igue Uhun mwen used to be stepped in mystique and the rites and rituals were hidden from the public. But when the Christians and other enemies of the Oba within continued to accuse Oba Eweka II of performing human sacrifices, he decidednto make the celebration and rituals of Igue public (Edeghogho, 2016). The above assertion could be construed to mean that the Igue festival in the post 1896 has declined greatly in its significance and has lost its true essence. etc

source :

Icheke Journal of the Faculty of Humanities Vol.18. No.3 September, 2020 www.ichekejournal.com Regaining the Lost Heritage: A Critique of the Revival of Igue Festival in Benin, Nigeria

https://ichekejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2.-Regaining-the-Lost-Heritage-A-Critique-of-the-Revival-of-Igue-Festival-in-Benin-Nigeria.pdf

--2A01:CB08:A7:BC00:D80B:EF33:4449:DD40 (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Looting, Booty

I am editing the reference to looting to emphasise booty. The article notes that the removal of the bronzes took place under the supervision of officers and was transferred to the UK for onward sale/donation which in turn helped pay for the military operation. No international agreements were breached in respect of the removal. All of that is consistent with objects taken as booty, not looting (which is disorganised theft). While artworks would not be taken todays as booty, and only military equipment can be taken, the same distinctions exist within international law today between looting and booty. Describing the booty as looting in this case introduces a subjective note intended to reflect contemporary sensibilities and detracts from the quality of the article. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)