You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
We need propaganda
- Thread starter ditto
- Start date
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
hayran
Ride The Lightning
Propaganda is worthless without a capable and effective state. Culture is downstream of law. People won’t take any propaganda seriously unless the source is able to put a bullet in their heads, that’s just human nature. An impoverished population is best motivated by fear.
Atomising families is a working solution to this problem, how does this hypothetical state find a way to give this new family structure an incentive? Or does enacting this require the state to be a lawless one?
as it stands the FGS cannot even tax the majority of the country, it’s an extremely weak state and that’s by design
Atomising families is a working solution to this problem, how does this hypothetical state find a way to give this new family structure an incentive? Or does enacting this require the state to be a lawless one?
as it stands the FGS cannot even tax the majority of the country, it’s an extremely weak state and that’s by design
I agree with your point that propaganda without a capable state is worthless
But motivation through fear alone is not sustainable in the long run, especially when dealing with Somalis who have always shown a strong resistance to anything they perceive as a threat to their autonomy. While fear might produce short term compliance, it will breed rebellion. People will probably comply out of fear but I don’t think they will truly ever support the state on a deeper level. I want Somalis to be able to give up their useless clan fiefdoms without a second thought. They won’t do that if they have a gun shoved in their face, but nothing to gain.
The state has to offer economic security that traditional family structures and clans are not able to, like affordable housing, decent health care, education and jobs. Also what I mentioned before, a common enemy and protection from who somalis perceive as an ‘enemy’. Other than other Somalis, it’s Ethiopia. All that can be used to incentivise them to accept a new structure and way of life, even if it disrupts what they’re used to it needs to be done in a way that doesn’t create hostility and resentment. The state should be seen as a protective force that aims to move the country forward, and protect the people from threats, but not be one that dismantles traditional support networks without providing anything in return.
To enact effective propaganda, the state should definitely not be lawless. It needs to be authoritative and able to exercise control, but not perceived as a threat to the average person. There should be a balance of commanding respect without provoking unnecessary fear.
In order to create propaganda, one must first have an ideology to counter the prevailing ideology. The current ideology that most Somalis adhere to is qabil. Nothing stands against a doctrine except a doctrine. We’ve already experienced the Kacaan era, which ultimately failed. But the real question is: what ideology can unite us in order to establish a stable system of governance?
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Last edited:
hayran
Ride The Lightning
We only act like this when this when the safety net of the clan is there. There is a very strong herd mentality among us that people just love to ignore, there is no "autonomy". The herd never allows for the true autonomy of the individual. When somalis rebel or question against their government, they are following their herd. The definition of the "herd" can vary by circumstance but the most relevant one here is the herd of the clan.
the more people comply, the more they will accept things and it will be hard coded as they age. they will teach their children to comply out of fear for their safety (using a broad example but the somali view on the value of children is something that is also highly questionable. must also be addressed in tandem with the clan issue). repeat this process and it will be culture.
the trick is to remain in the position of being able to make them comply long enough, something that Siad failed to do.
quite a romantic view on human survival instincts, when someone is backed up against the wall (stripped of all social protections) and a gun is shoved into their face they will do just about anything to survive.
good point on the enemy.
the whole idea of unifying somalis in the modern era is rooted in a resistance to ethiopian christian encroachment onto our lands. without that blob there is no reason for us to unite, i'd have been of the opinion that it is okay if we all just balkanize and "develop our regions" but in the face of an expansionist ethiopia, which views mass scale ethnic wars full of death and misery as cyclical, such a view is utterly naive and self destructive to all somalis.
however i do not believe it is the responsibility of the state to provide everything people need, because they will have their cake and eat it too. there is nothing to incentivize people away from their clans in this model, the people at the top will just plunder the state and loot even more tax money to further their own clans interest. when the state is the biggest cash cow in town, everyone will just flock there, it has been the bane of us since 1960 and still is today.
economics is easy, law is not. figuring out what your governance ultimately means and direction you want to move your culture in requires difficult conversations. in this situation the state should be allowed to act "beyond acceptability" of somali norms. every skirmish ends with old garaads suddenly coming to a "peace" when lives are already lost and nothing major was gained for either faction. if that's the norm, then it is a culture of stagnation.
if you want progress, then the state should act "above the law". if it is unable to for whatever reason, then it has no sovreignity.
Culture is downstream of Law.
and
Law is downstream of Violence.
Last edited:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
The alchemist
VIP
The modern word for propaganda is PR. PR is about emphasizing the good, propaganda are idealized lie attempting to realize or serve as an illusory mirage. That is why old Western national dictatorships never worked. They were too bipolar in their collective narcissism (i.e., grandeur), too removed from reality, and too extreme.
The Somaloids that lived in Kenya had clan intricacies when they were not Muslim. Our Y-DNA alone being very uniform tells us we've been tribal since we came to the land, otherwise, we'd have Y-chromosomal diversity, like the Habash. Somalis were always patriarchal, and patrilocal.
People claiming Arab roots is a much later configuration that had something to do with political ambitions. Expressing relatedness to the Prophet (PBUH) among Muslims gave someone legitimacy. This innovation based on lies served as a way to exalt the clan. These questionable motivations can only occur if people value tribal relational values, to begin with.
Our cousins, the Bejas, were part of a massive tribal confederacy that was a kingdom for 500 years, stretching between northern central Eastern Desert, all the way to peripheral Eritrea, around the Gash tributaries. We define them as very tribal in a pseudo-heterarchical model, that has an overarching hierarchical, coherent form.
"Taking into consideration all these historical allusions to Blemmyean and Beja kings, there was likely a continuous institution of preeminent kingship from approximately the fourth century CE until the early Arab period — a span of roughly 500 years."
"For 500 years, the Atbai desert space was defined by a nomadic elite, complex hierarchies, and pronounced episodes of political opportunity and unity. The Blemmyean polity was therefore one of the most enduring confederated tribal polities traceable in the ancient history of Africa."
"Nevertheless, the division into several groups or tribes by the inhabitants of the Eastern Desert did not prevent some of these groups from recognizing the authority of a paramount chief who called himself basileus (“king”) and mentions phylarchs below him, as for example in a Greek letter addressed to the king of Noubade"
The ancient Nubians that we descended from were tribal, as well.
The organization through kinship is a natural phenomenon for individuals who subscribe to a pastoral ideology that is not totally sedentary. I will go into this another time, but ancient Egyptian dynastic ruler-ship was sourced directly from a Cushitic chieftain ideology.
The notion that Somali agro-pastoralists-traders were not tribal before Islam, is not supported by the evidence.
The Somaloids that lived in Kenya had clan intricacies when they were not Muslim. Our Y-DNA alone being very uniform tells us we've been tribal since we came to the land, otherwise, we'd have Y-chromosomal diversity, like the Habash. Somalis were always patriarchal, and patrilocal.
People claiming Arab roots is a much later configuration that had something to do with political ambitions. Expressing relatedness to the Prophet (PBUH) among Muslims gave someone legitimacy. This innovation based on lies served as a way to exalt the clan. These questionable motivations can only occur if people value tribal relational values, to begin with.
Our cousins, the Bejas, were part of a massive tribal confederacy that was a kingdom for 500 years, stretching between northern central Eastern Desert, all the way to peripheral Eritrea, around the Gash tributaries. We define them as very tribal in a pseudo-heterarchical model, that has an overarching hierarchical, coherent form.
"Taking into consideration all these historical allusions to Blemmyean and Beja kings, there was likely a continuous institution of preeminent kingship from approximately the fourth century CE until the early Arab period — a span of roughly 500 years."
"For 500 years, the Atbai desert space was defined by a nomadic elite, complex hierarchies, and pronounced episodes of political opportunity and unity. The Blemmyean polity was therefore one of the most enduring confederated tribal polities traceable in the ancient history of Africa."
"Nevertheless, the division into several groups or tribes by the inhabitants of the Eastern Desert did not prevent some of these groups from recognizing the authority of a paramount chief who called himself basileus (“king”) and mentions phylarchs below him, as for example in a Greek letter addressed to the king of Noubade"
The ancient Nubians that we descended from were tribal, as well.
The organization through kinship is a natural phenomenon for individuals who subscribe to a pastoral ideology that is not totally sedentary. I will go into this another time, but ancient Egyptian dynastic ruler-ship was sourced directly from a Cushitic chieftain ideology.
Devilsadvocate
Not affiliated with HAG, puntland1st, CBB, MBB, SL
I’ve actually been pondering this for a while too, but more in terms of PR and not propaganda. In my opinion, the only way to run a high-impact PR campaign is for Somalia to become a peaceful country. I’m not asking for it to be developed to China’s level, but at least it should meet the minimum standard of peace. From there, if the country starts developing to the point where basic amenities for human life are covered and at a good standard, that itself will improve our PR and repair our image as a failed state. Many Westerners are tired of living in high-demand capitalist countries. I’m from the UK, and everyone is always moaning or complaining, and it doesn’t help that the weather is dreadful for most of the year. Many people would love to move, but the only options are places like Dubai, which isn't really seen as a good choice due to its desert environment and lack of public transport.
Why don’t we do what East Asia does and allow foreigners from Anglo speaking countries, such as the USA, UK, Australia, etc., to live in Somalia with benefits like very low tax rates? In return, we could utilise their knowledge in various ways; we could even have them as English teachers in schools, for example. But I want this to be done in a very specific way. I don’t want us to turn into the next Dubai or even Thailand, and I’ll delve into that in more detail another time.
Why don’t we do what East Asia does and allow foreigners from Anglo speaking countries, such as the USA, UK, Australia, etc., to live in Somalia with benefits like very low tax rates? In return, we could utilise their knowledge in various ways; we could even have them as English teachers in schools, for example. But I want this to be done in a very specific way. I don’t want us to turn into the next Dubai or even Thailand, and I’ll delve into that in more detail another time.
Sorry I haven’t read this thanks for this. I see now thank you for this insight.
Also weren’t their less tribes in comparison today, I assumed it would of been less of an issue back then than it was now since some major tribes came recently (the ones that claim Arab lineage) and how come other pastoralists were able to not become as bad as us?
@The alchemist
Last edited:
The alchemist
VIP
There is no evidence people were less tribal back then. In fact, I would think more, given that state structure was less present. Tribe is an effective way of organizing, mobilizing, control of territory and wealth, for war purposes. Etc. Tribes are kin-based, micro-nations. It's natural for pastoralists to align themselves through tribes.
Major tribes did not come recently; they reconfigured over and over again. Those are just tribes that expanded through time, in complex ways. You would always have predominant tribes from the get-go. You have haplogroups that nearly every Somali goes back to that are older than when Islam came to the region. Identity by Somalis since the early days was very much so defined by lineage-based patriarchy.
Just because you have a tribal associative kin-based system, does not mean you don't have complexity. It doesn't mean rules don't exist, that state structure and economic regionalism did not exist. That economic diversity did not exist. Many of the large and successful civilizations were very tribal, kin-based. The large civilizations of Iran, Sabaeans, and the Ancient Kushites in Nubia were tribal, to name a few. Tribal systems are extremely flexible allowing for complex systems. You can be very centralized and have complex tribal associations yet be highly urbanized people.
Sometimes a comprehensive system includes those tribes and urban centers to form a greater whole with efficient economic flow. Certainly, that was the case for the ancient Somalis. You'd be surprised how unique and successful they were. They certainly outcompeted Axum when it came to trade by far.
You don't need to live rigidly primitive and limited to be tribal. A tribe is not narrow to what you see in a pastoralist tuulo, only. That is a modern nation-state pejorative that tries to limit concepts of collective peoples-relations to a civic monopoly and it skews the picture of the past that does not agree with the data. For Somalis, it is defined as a tribe going wrong or misaligned with national organization and fragmentary functions. This is a failure of Somalis and not how a tribe is inherently wrong. Oman is a tribal society that has a very well-functioning centralized state. You can be familial tribal by identity and have a functioning state where the negatives of tribalism don't affect things.
why would they move they to somalia tho? also how will english teachers help
