Page 2 of 2

Re: is this true ( the colonial period)?

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:15 am
by daiman
xiinow, is this the sheegato one? horta have you made agreements with your toher sheegato?

btw hamar or marka was not hawiye towns at the time, so relax. there were all kind of somali women affected by the desease and it is not their fault.

Re: is this true ( the colonial period)?

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:12 pm
by Anarchist
The earliest known syphilis outbreak outside of the new world occurred after Columbus returned from the Americas, which possibly means it was not native to either Africa, Asia or Europe, but was brought back to Europe by the Spaniards. From there on, it spread to France, Italy and much of Europe, leaving behind a trail of devastation according to epidemiologists. So, it is possible for colonialists to have brought the disease to Africa or it could have come prior to colonialism by way of traders crossing over the continent from Europe. By the mere fact that Somalis even back then were very rigid in their religion and their traditions meant that prostitution was not as rampant in Somalia during colonialism as it were in many other sub-Saharan countries. There has never been an actual epidemiological research done in this that I know of and have never heard of actual syphilis epidemic anywhere in Somalia the way it did in many other places and specially in Europe after Columbus returned.

Soomaalida misinterpret Isfiilito (which actually means syphilis) for another condition known as encephalitis (a meningitis like disease that causes inflammation of brain tissue). There was a widespread belief decades ago which has since become debunked in the medical community i.e. that people who were diagnosed with encephalitis in their childhood somehow ended up with mood disorders (specially sudden anger & mood swings). Hence the expressions that we often hear "Qofkaas wuu xanaaq badanyahay, isfiilito ayaa nafta ka qaaday!" Again misusing the actual meaning of what isfiilito is and its medical characteristics. Maybe these widespread misconceptions had an effect on people's psyche and the public's ignorance about the devastating symptoms of syphilis itself? Probably.

Re: is this true ( the colonial period)?

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:53 pm
by original dervish
if you would have read the excerpt I posted earlier from the British Somaliland colonial archive, you would have known that syphilis was widespread in somaliland by 1949.

Re: is this true ( the colonial period)?

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:15 pm
by Anarchist
original dervish wrote:if you would have read the excerpt I posted earlier from the British Somaliland colonial archive, you would have known that syphilis was widespread in somaliland by 1949.
Not sure what Somaliland has to do with her question, I merely addressed possible link between Italian colonialism, Southern cities and the spread of syphilis which has never been established. Not scientifically at least.

Re: is this true ( the colonial period)?

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:45 pm
by Leftist
Original Dervish,

Your schadenfreude is misplaced. LaasCaanood/Puntland only a stone's throw away from Somaliland, which means that any syphilis outbreak there would equally affect the neighboring communities.

Re: is this true ( the colonial period)?

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:44 pm
by grandpakhalif
Why don't you ask the dhabayaco we have a prime example of Amina daughter of Majeerteenian sultan focked by Italian lover for her father to gain weapons. :steviej:

Seems like S!!l diplomacy culture existed in Majeerteenia for a long time. :D

Re: is this true ( the colonial period)?

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:44 pm
by original dervish
leftist

I`m merely contributing to the debate.
Try not to look at everything through clan spectacles.