To be honest, walaal, Burton doesn’t really distort much. It’s mostly these people interpreting him through their own agendas who end up twisting things. All Burton really says about Harar is that the Hararis make up 1/3rd of the town’s population and, to be honest, while he does speak of the Emir as "their Emir" he never actually calls the Emir "Harari".
In fact, if he had some deep-seated agenda against Somalis, he’d be pretty strange to state things like: the Emir’s principal wife is a Somali woman from the Bartire; the Amir's family has maintained a marriage pact like this with the Bartire for generations; Shaykh Jami of this same tribe is practically the Amir's most influential minister; Harar is wholly at the mercy of whoever controls Berbera or Saylac—both of which he explicitly says are in Somali hands; and that Somalis, both settled and "Bedouin who come and go", make up 2/3rds of the town’s population. Hardly the work of someone trying to discredit Somalis.
Just, as you say, someone who isn't fully clued in because he got in through lies and deception and it was frankly a short visit.
It’s not that Burton had a deep-seated agenda against Somalis from the outset. I’m not saying he woke up one day and thought,
“I hate Somalis, let me write nonsense about them.”
The issue lies in
how he collected his information:
- Burton entered Harar illegally through deception, which severely limited his ability to gather reliable data.
- He relied primarily on random locals, meaning his accounts were shaped by secondhand knowledge rather than direct, authoritative sources.
And then there’s the matter of
how he processed and interpreted that limited information his biases inevitably influenced his conclusions.
Take, for example, the infamous
“Galla origin” theory that marked the beginning of modern Somali historiography in Western academia. Richard Burton was one of its earliest proponents, and later scholars like Enrico Cerulli and I.M. Lewis built upon this fabrication, effectively rewriting Somali history to exclude Somalis from their own past.
Said Shidad even pointed out the irony in this:
"Galla" was never a local term Somalis used for the Oromo as a whole, different Somali groups had different localized names for them. Worse still, Western scholars misinterpreted the old Somali pronunciation of
Geel (camel) and
Gaal (a term found in many Somali place names), linking it to
Galla which only led to further distortions of local stories.
So how did a name that Somalis neither used nor recognized become attached to them? And how did they end up being blamed as the source of a fabricated historical narrative when no Somali records or other textual sources support it?
Later, more rigorous scholars like Herbert Lewis were left
flabbergasted when they examined the actual recorded history of the region. They saw how a straightforward account of the Oromo expansion into Somali territories was somehow twisted into a narrative of
Somalis pushing out Oromos.
It’s the same pattern we see with Spanish archaeologists when they write about us, their work seems to defy logic and common sense. They construct self-contradictory, senseless narratives because their own biases, misconceptions, and motives shape how they interpret the facts.