Maybe your clan, don't lump us together.
Is Every Qabiil It’s Own Ethnic Group?
- Thread starter Dooyo
- Start date
World
VIP
Which clan had a city with at least 30k inhabitants before the 20th century?Maybe your clan, don't lump us together.
Are you implying 19th century Italy had continuity with the Western Roman Empire?
Those guys are interior nomads lmao. The only other East African people that had commercial ports besides Somalis were Eritreans and Swahilis.
You mean Arabians? Because Maghrebis, Egyptians, Levantines and Iraqis are certainly not one ethnicity. Anyways those Gulf states exist due to oil. Your hypothetical Somali qabil states would be too gaajo to function and irrelevant and easily bullied by Ethiopia or Kenya, like what is happening to Jubaland.
No. It didn't have continuity. But Italian irrendentism is what brought back Italians under a unified state. Italians were united before the 19th century, is my point.
Then some Chinese bookeeper with shaky hands and bad eyesight made a mistake. The text Somalis are apparently mentioned was from like what, 1066? Ludicrous.
I think some of the hypothetical Somali qabiils states could fair rather well. SL could. PL could. The Hiraab Imamate could, then they could annex JL if the Kenyan bullying down there gets too bad.
We would be thriving if Ethiopia hadn’t sought Portuguese assistance, the peasant farmer celebrated there ruling class losing, they were basically slaves and seen us as saviors. Those of us with access to fertile land practised agropastoralism, while pure pastoralism was limited to the most arid regions, after the Adal - Ethio war, we lost a sizable amount of arable land to Oromo who took advantage of the loss of fighting men, quite a few clans migrated into Kenya and South Somalia during this period, the Portuguese blockaded the coasts and the Oromo killed trade in the interior, the Isa and Gadabuursi consolidated power in there respective regions, but the Gurgura who mainly profited of the trade went into decline.
Feel free to read the topic below for more context Idilinaa posted it.
Somali Agricultural Revolution( 900-1600s) ?
I have been looking at various historical trends and linkages and came across. The Arab Agricultural Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Agricultural_Revolution which took places through the entirety of the medieval period. Which made me think that Somalia might have been connected to...
www.somalispot.com
if it weren’t for the Darod reconquista you’d all be boranas. Harti/OG invasion into NFD and jubaland and Absame Darbi Somali in the west, thank Sayidka too because he protected you from Amhara and oromos lol.I'm not interested in engaging in FKD. My map is the map I identify with. You are free to believe in your version of the map.
The bastardized Somaliweyn concept is just Daroodism, not inclusive enough, that's why this ideology couldn't gain traction and why 77 was a failure. The intention behind recapturing Somali lands back from the Ethiopians was not heartfelt, not motivated by the right ideology.
Real Somaliweyn is Samaaleweyn. If we go by the old fairytale of how Somali qabiils came about, you'd realize that Samaaleweynism is the true binding force of the Somali people. If Samaaleweyn does not unite us all, Jidwaaq, Ciise, OGs, Isaaqs, etc in Jigjiga/Dir Dhabe will be assimilated by Amharas and Oromos in 10 years. We already have a couple of Somali (non-Darood) clans on the verge of being chomped up by the Oromummaa assimilation machine.
Adal, from the little I've read about it so far, was composed of many clans, Dir, Hawiye and Darood.
I said it wasn't 100% accurate.
And no, Amharas will never assimilate anyone it’s just the Hawiye and Dir there like to switch sides often.
Darod are both the shield and mace of the Somali race, no two ways about it.
World
VIP
The Somalis were separated into clans, whilst the Abyssinians were just peasant farmers. If Somalis were not separated into clans, and Sanaag to Mudug to Gedo received a consistent 500mm rainfall, then we would all just be peasant farmers. All of our problems would be solved. Instead we got Marehan vs Ogaden vs Hawiye FGS vs Al Shabab vs Ethiopia vs Kenya.
What? How were they united before the 19th century? Look at any map of Italy between the 8th-18th century and you will see several city states, kingdoms and duchies covering the peninsula. The only time Italy was ever "united" before the 19th century was in the very early Middle Ages just after the Western Roman Empire collapsed where chieftains took over and ruled as kings of Italy (Odoacer, Ostrogothic), but they were Germanic not Italian.
Not 1066, 1100 AD. Nothing is ludicrous about it given the descriptions.
And like I said before, Somalis were also mentioned by Habeshas in the 15th century so not too long after "Italian" first popped up.I've seen it , its not speaking of Somalia in the 800CE and 1060 based on it. They are talking about tribes from the far deep Southern East African Coast.
It was covered in this blog post some years back
800 CE Po-pa-li is not Somalia but 1100 CE Pi-pa-lo is?
Anthromadness
anthromadness.blogspot.com
The Po-pa-li of 1100 is actually talking about Somalia. And the descriptions of it lines up with the economy, and the geography of the region. To an incredible accuracy.
They also make it clear in the 1100 and other ones that Somalis did not enslave each-other but acted as middlemen and that it being transit place for slaves coming from the deeper swahili south.
They would all be very poor and lacking in resources. The complete opposite of the Gulf Arab states. United, we stand to be stronger and better suited to utilize Somaliweyn's geographic advantages.
Somalis were historically the most united and connected group out of all Africans, prior to colonialism and most progressive out of most Africans as well. We identified under collective identities that linked us to eachother, where as Africans including Ethiopians did not and lived as strangers.
Pastoralism is a mode of food production, it's says nothing of your technological and civlizational advancement capabilities. It's like saying other culturers are all backward peasant rural farmers and reduce them to their mode of food production.
We don't have a culture of nomadism, we have a culture of mobility. There is no such thing as a Somali nomad , we were either agricultural-pastoralists or mobile pastoralists and we also had small fishing subsets as well. All groups settled in cities, towns from to time and engaged in trade and occupations.
Historically pastoralism gave Somalis major advantages over only farrming despite the lack of rain fall in certain places, they had unique ways to cirmcumvent it.
Conclusion:
People are quick to mention the semi-arid landscape of Somalia, i.e the lack rainfall as a disadvantage. But in reality that climate encouraged resourcefulness ,creativity and technological advances to overcome it which in turn contributed to heightened our intelligence and abundance.
You had to be adaptive and innovative to survive: irrigation methods, water harvesting systems, plant experiments (vavilov center: ), cattle or pack animal domestication and grain storage/trade systems etc Complex calendar systems and counting the seasons days and counting systems.
This qoute from the 1700s on Northern Somalia shows how we overcame the lack of rainfall.
''It seldom rains here; but the country is well watered by rivers and abounds with wheat, millet, frankinscense and pepper''
In the Eastern(Bari) Somalia where it's the most baren part of our land they circumvented the bad saline soil , to plant dates and large cities grew around it in the past. There is a thread on this: https://www.somalispot.com/threads/...ng-town-called-geesaleey.169920/#post-4102693
Also I have seen some try to use Somalis pastoralist leanings as a sort of a dunk or dismissal when in reality, in Somalia the pastoralists were far wealthier than agriculturalists and often times when they did farm, they combined it with livestock herding to maximize the benefit and yeild. Pastoral products yielded more wealth and fetched hire prices than agricultural grain products.
Infact throughout East Africa this was generally the case the Pastoralists were far wealthier and politically more dominant , take for example the Hutu and Tutsis.
This plays into the reason why there was such an attitude towards relying on solely farming and it's pure economical. Because it truly was economically inferior to pastoralism and also because it was seen as less sustainable, if you experience drought or a bad harvest, you are basically screwed , that is not true for someone who practice transhumance , the ability to move to another activity or keeps livestock.
Infact this is one of the main reasons why famines was rarer and less prevelant in historical Somalia than it was in Europe and Asia. Take for example Japan had multiple devistating famines, that occured in random bouts killing of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famines_in_Japan
In Europe it was even greater the average person, experiences 3 - 4 famines in their life time. It was soo bad they ended resorting to infanticide and cannibalism on a frequent basis
Lastly contrary to what modern revisionists claim. Somalis historically did not use slaves to farm land, or keep slave plantations. In the Shabelle River we have direct sources mentioning ethnic Somali farming communities and no mentions of slaves used for farming. Infact we have refrences that all the slaves up until the 19th century were domestic ethiopians and not bantus slave farmers. There was no client cultivator relationship either.
In the north and in the western galbeed with the survival of several farming communities we see it is simply Somali pastoralists that cultivate the land and farm and they are not client cultivators. So the idea that we despise or adverse to farming completely unfounded. Historically both the north and the south farmed and herded livestock. Both regions had mobile pastoralists(not nomads) and agro-pastrolists(combined sedentary farming with livestock herding)
Somalis are still united by culture and identity. Somalia has a fractured political unity for the same reason as the middle east is, because outside of meddling, destabilization, invasions, colonial history(division of south & north, Ogaden, NFD)(divide & conquer) . So it's geo-political in nature, not cultural.
Also blaming qabil makes zero sense if you look at history and how qabil operates traditionally. Visitors came to cities settlements and saw different clans united and collectively governed things under city councils. And sultanates, tariqa orders that included people of different family lineages.
You know why those examples exist? Because Qabil's function is for sharing, inclusion and cooperation.
Found this passage that kind explains the inclusionary nature of Somali clanhood
You can also see the inclusionary nature in how various types of newcomers, guests etc are incorporated into the clan system via the abaan system in the towns or sheegad in the rural areas etc and also the non-nepotism in the egalitarian nature of the city councils that gave everyone an equal say and role in the decision making process.
Last edited:
Lmaao how are you really using Abyssinians as a comparison
They didn't have a centralized system of governance , don't buy the wiki nonsense and they was seperated into many different rural fiefdoms, with no cities and they were actively pillaging and oppressing eachother. They weren't united at all, just like they are today. They behaved like strangers to eachother and lived in subjugation.
This how they are described in the 20th century:
Lets move away from current times and look at how an Egyptian author described the so society called sophisticted peaceful agricultural Abyssinians their civilization and modern state in the early 1900s
This still bleeds into Ethiopias current situation. As this study shows.
Administrative and military impediments of medieval Ethiopian economy
The point i am getting at here is that, being sedentary or agricultural does not make you inherently safe peaceful or sophisticated or capable of building a modern states.
What actually does is increase in economic activity and control/pulling of resources and cooperation/stability.
Same with other Africans they were farmers but were all isolated tribes, separated from eachother.
Meanwhile Somalis were cooperating with eachother cross regionally and engaging in long distance trade broken into many connected cities, settlements and provinces. Clans actually connected us to eachother over long distances and geography, it did not seperate us from one another.
The Somali medieval sultanates used both locally minted ones and international coins. and wide internal trade market where the coins were used in wide circulation.
19th century description of Somali northern-western trade routes and production:
French Voyage visitor in 1814 describes the landscape in the Horn: moving on from Axum and Gondar he says:
''But busiest and most important commercial route is the one which links the province of efat(Awat)-Argouba(Awgoba) to Harar, the central city of the country of Adel, inhabited by Saumalis(Somalis), and opens to the production of southern Abyssinia the maritime outlet of Barbara, through which they are exported from Africa''
The population of Harar is without a doubt the most industrious in East Africa, the one whose skills have been applied to commerce with the most success: the inhabitants of Harrar are even the real factors in the commerce of the part of Africa; they penetrate far''
View attachment 342621
Last edited:
You are 100% right
Europeans were divided into many small fiefdoms and chiefdoms within a wider feudal framework , that were constantly at war with one another over resources or territory. Suffering famine and disease.
There was no real unifying spanish, portuguese or italian identity or even german identity at most point of their history the way we see it today in the modern nation state model that actually began in the 18th century, thats when they started to debate about sovereignity and national citizenship, then in the 19th we saw the rise of nationalism and consolidation of nation states.
Somalis were identified collectively under Al-Zaylai, Barbar and Jabarti most of the middle ages, but most often these were regional identities before the emergence of the Somali national identity, that name was more or less an occupational name in the 1500s.
Like i said before when you take an honest look at Somalis there is not much of a hinderance in our cultural history or geography that points to an obstacle for unity other than our recent political history
A lot of people don't understand the concept of a social construct and think "social construct = therefore fake."
A social construct is simply a concept that is accepted as true in a society. For example, money is a social construct. Would you send me all your money because it’s something that cannot exist outside of society?
An ethnic group typically consists of four (but not hard rule) components: linguistic, cultural, and genetic unity among a people, solidified with a shared idea of identity.
This is why the concept of the modern Somali and Somali irredentism quickly took root. On top of having a bedrock of tribal connections and shared paternal and maternal links to one another, the common language, identity, and culture transformed the tribal Somali identity into the modern ethnic identity of a Somali. Somali is completely mutually intelligible from east to west and south to north, with incredibly little genetic variance and an almost borderline monoculture and single religion.
The argument against this, which honestly only comes from one group—secessionists—is to further political goals. Linguistic, cultural, and religious arguments are nonexistent, so like a fourteen-year-old who has just learned about nihilism, they say, "But identity is a social construct," not realizing that just because something is a social construct doesn’t mean it’s not real. Our entire clan system is a social construct, but it’s real in its consequences.
The concept of a clan is a social construct. Social constructs often point to deep-seated realities. Somalis didn't need genetic testing or a standardized language or culture; Europe had to do that to stamp out regionalism. We identified who was Somali before those things were even widely known.
A social construct is simply a concept that is accepted as true in a society. For example, money is a social construct. Would you send me all your money because it’s something that cannot exist outside of society?
An ethnic group typically consists of four (but not hard rule) components: linguistic, cultural, and genetic unity among a people, solidified with a shared idea of identity.
This is why the concept of the modern Somali and Somali irredentism quickly took root. On top of having a bedrock of tribal connections and shared paternal and maternal links to one another, the common language, identity, and culture transformed the tribal Somali identity into the modern ethnic identity of a Somali. Somali is completely mutually intelligible from east to west and south to north, with incredibly little genetic variance and an almost borderline monoculture and single religion.
The argument against this, which honestly only comes from one group—secessionists—is to further political goals. Linguistic, cultural, and religious arguments are nonexistent, so like a fourteen-year-old who has just learned about nihilism, they say, "But identity is a social construct," not realizing that just because something is a social construct doesn’t mean it’s not real. Our entire clan system is a social construct, but it’s real in its consequences.
The concept of a clan is a social construct. Social constructs often point to deep-seated realities. Somalis didn't need genetic testing or a standardized language or culture; Europe had to do that to stamp out regionalism. We identified who was Somali before those things were even widely known.
Exactly. Premodern France is a good example. The country used to be far more linguistically diverse with regions having their own identity and cultures until the French revolution happened that saw mass assimilation policies and the forced adoption of French by minorities. Heck, even before the revolution the monarchy already made French an official language and started phasing out languages like Occitan.
Meanwhile Somaliweyn only ever had Somali as the majority language. Other languages like Swahili did exist but most minorities adopted Somali on their own as a result of trade and contact with Somalis. To that end, its easier to argue that France is more artificial than Somalia is as the concept of Somalia is based on a single ethnicity and language that was always dominant whereas France had to force itself to be majority French.
You know why European such as France is more artificial? , its because they had to impose uniformity with violent savagery and brutality. They were slaughtering each other constantly and then a whole bunch of them would die of famine and disease intermittently
The Thirty Years War of the 17th century for example, maybe a third of the population in Germany was wiped out. and half of central European population was wiped out.
There has never been 100 years and 30 years of Somali regions mass slaughtering each other uninterrupted.
It's like you said, It was the opposite for Somalis who became more culturally and linguistically uniform out of largely through trade and contact with one another.
Disclaimer: I do believe (as of now) that Somalis are a single ethnic group, I am mostly playing devil's advocate, as I've seen many Somalis from diverse clan backgrounds make the argument that a Somali ethnicity does not exist, in their opinion as of lately.
Did the regional identities encompass all Somali people? With each of those names, is there evidence of Somalis from diverse clan backgrounds identifying as that? Or is is just one clan?
Isn't inter connectivity crucial to civilization building? There's no way Somalis were the only interconnected people on this continent. Lived as strangers, I'm assuming meant no trade, no migration, no conquering of neighboring lands, etc.
What if a society rejects the concept of being Somali? I'm sure there has been instances in history where ethnic groups have split over time, after migrations or any other reason that might cause a shift in identity. Wouldn't those claiming their qabiil is an ethnicity in itself be justified to do so?
What does genetic unity entail? I've seen those make the argument that since the paternal haplogroups of Somalis are diverse, especially with beesha Dir having majority haplogroup T, that there is in fact no genetic unity amongst Somalis. Not to mention, the very prominent ana Arab people that overlap the two main groups that most commonly reject being Somali and/or claim Arab ancestry. I personally think this obsession with paternal lineage is overrated, why is autosomal DNA thrown out the window by these folk?
Did the regional identities encompass all Somali people? With each of those names, is there evidence of Somalis from diverse clan backgrounds identifying as that? Or is is just one clan?
Isn't inter connectivity crucial to civilization building? There's no way Somalis were the only interconnected people on this continent. Lived as strangers, I'm assuming meant no trade, no migration, no conquering of neighboring lands, etc.
Disclaimer: I do believe (as of now) that Somalis are a single ethnic group, I am mostly playing devil's advocate, as I've seen many Somalis from diverse clan backgrounds make the argument that a Somali ethnicity does not exist, in their opinion as of lately.
What if a society rejects the concept of being Somali? I'm sure there has been instances in history where ethnic groups have split over time, after migrations or any other reason that might cause a shift in identity. Wouldn't those claiming their qabiil is an ethnicity in itself be justified to do so?
What does genetic unity entail? I've seen those make the argument that since the paternal haplogroups of Somalis are diverse, especially with beesha Dir having majority haplogroup T, that there is in fact no genetic unity amongst Somalis. Not to mention, the very prominent ana Arab people that overlap the two main groups that most commonly reject being Somali and/or claim Arab ancestry. I personally think this obsession with paternal lineage is overrated, why is autosomal DNA thrown out the window by these folk?
Did the regional identities encompass all Somali people? With each of those names, is there evidence of Somalis from diverse clan backgrounds identifying as that? Or is is just one clan?
Isn't inter connectivity crucial to civilization building? There's no way Somalis were the only interconnected people on this continent. Lived as strangers, I'm assuming meant no trade, no migration, no conquering of neighboring lands, etc.
Ethnicity is people with shared ancestry culture and language by that definition Somalis are an ethnicity. Clans are family lineages they do not contain inherent differences that sets them apart.
I have gone over the regional names and yes Somalis of diverse clan background wore them.
But if you dial it back to the actual history, most of Somalis in the past identified with the region and city they were from rather than their qabil , when they interracted with the outside world or traveled internally. The regional leaders in the 1800s introduced themselves as Al-Sumal and or Emir of Sumal. It similar to the Somali scholars that traveled throughout refered to themselves as Al-Barawi, Al-Maqdishi, Al-Zayla'i, Al-Jabarti etc
Even a Faqih family from the nugaal town of Badda in the 13th century , like Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Abu Bakr bin Muhammad al-Zayla’i al-Uqayli bore the nisba Al-Zayla'i.
Even the merchant city Gendabelo i mentioned just now. There was someone who carried the nisba Jandabli. Ḥāmid bin Ibrahīm al-Jandabalī who was the secretary (Kabir) of , the Emir/Sultan Imām Muḥammad Bin. Ibrāhīm Jāsa who transfered Awdals capital from Harar to Awsa in 1576.
There was no Al-Ajuuran, Al-Hawiye, Al-Darood , Al-Harla, Al-Merahan, Al-Hatimi, Al-Ashraaf , Al-Harti or Al-Ishaaqi or Al-Tunni
This is funny to read cos even genetically we are a quitensential ethnicity. 90% of Somali men belong to just two male-line lineages. E-Z813 and T-L208. We have the same mtDNA diversity all across Somaliweyn and our auDNA is incredibly homogenous from Galbeed to Koonfur to Bari and Woqooyi. I still remember the early days of private DNA sequencing when randos from Bosaso or Hargeysa were turning up with relatives from totally different Qabiils in Koonfur or southern Ethiopia. We have a lot of IBD sharing to a point that flirts with in-breeding.
Then all 4 major tribes speak merely dialects of the same language, have the same religion and the same sect and school within said religion and only regional cultural variations and it's the descendants of these people who want to come online and argue if they're even an ethnicity. Stop the shaqo la'aan and get on LinkedIn, niyahow.
Then all 4 major tribes speak merely dialects of the same language, have the same religion and the same sect and school within said religion and only regional cultural variations and it's the descendants of these people who want to come online and argue if they're even an ethnicity. Stop the shaqo la'aan and get on LinkedIn, niyahow.
This is funny to read cos even genetically we are a quitensential ethnicity. 90% of Somali men belong to just two male-line lineages. E-Z813 and T-L208. We have the same mtDNA diversity all across Somaliweyn and our auDNA is incredibly homogenous from Galbeed to Koonfur to Bari and Woqooyi. I still remember the early days of private DNA sequencing when randos from Bosaso or Hargeysa were turning up with relatives from totally different Qabiils in Koonfur or southern Ethiopia. We have a lot of IBD sharing to a point that flirts with in-breeding.
Then all 4 major tribes speak merely dialects of the same language, have the same religion and the same sect and school within said religion and only regional cultural variations and it's the descendants of these people who want to come online and argue if they're even an ethnicity. Stop the shaqo la'aan and get on LinkedIn, niyahow.
I actually explained why Somalis have a lot of uniformity and it's really to do with our geography and mobile-trade orientated culture that took advantage of it.
This is funny to read cos even genetically we are a quitensential ethnicity. 90% of Somali men belong to just two male-line lineages. E-Z813 and T-L208. We have the same mtDNA diversity all across Somaliweyn and our auDNA is incredibly homogenous from Galbeed to Koonfur to Bari and Woqooyi. I still remember the early days of private DNA sequencing when randos from Bosaso or Hargeysa were turning up with relatives from totally different Qabiils in Koonfur or southern Ethiopia. We have a lot of IBD sharing to a point that flirts with in-breeding.
Then all 4 major tribes speak merely dialects of the same language, have the same religion and the same sect and school within said religion and only regional cultural variations and it's the descendants of these people who want to come online and argue if they're even an ethnicity. Stop the shaqo la'aan and get on LinkedIn, niyahow.
Walaahi shaki weyn baa la ii geliyeey, war ba ma ogid
I had to seek clarification on certain things.
I remember explaining the IBD sharing to my mother years ago and she, as a complete layman, pretty much said the same. "Our terrain is not hard to cover and we had the nomads and a trade based culture. Not surprising."
I wish there was truth to every qabil being it’s own Ethnicity It would be less embarrassing then being the own ethnicity and killing eachother
Trending
-
Horn Africans are migrating to South Africa in large numbers
- Started by Chaseyourdreamzz
- Replies: 54
-
Matt Walsh says Somalis are low IQ, "Ilhan Omar comes from one of the most dangerous, violent, poorest countries on earth."- Started by capricornqueen
- Replies: 52
