Moderator: Moderators
Raganimo wrote:
We're a sub-sub-sub..... clan of Daarood yet we have historically stood on our own without needing to hide behind the Daarood name. This is the case for all daaroods. You deal with MJ as MJ, dhulos as dhulos, same for Mareexaan and Ogaden. Each daarood clan stands on the merits of its own name and history. Yet how many people even differentiate between Isaaqs outside of your people?
Again your argument is not based on logic , its based on silly Daarood presumption of tribal hate . 99% of these informants were from your Daarood tribe , that doesn't mean shit , it only means those who had access to the dervish via geographical proximity or marriage relationships hailed from your own tribe. Those simple basic facts debunks your tribal bogyman .Raganimo wrote:This stupid argument does not hold water from an academic perspective. We need to know what these reports were based on. Were they based on information that was fed to them by Somalis? If so, what tribe were these somalis from? Do I really have to explain to you how, say, an Isaaq informant would have an interest in disseminating unflattering/negative information about an enemy tribe? I have access to reports by these same colonialists that are extremely unflattering about Isaaqs, particularly the HY, yet I would be foolish to take them at face value without considering the type of Intel that they were based upon.X.Playa wrote:These are called intelligence papers and those papers have zero shreds of any misinformation because my little jaahil boy its directed to inform the British government and no British colonial servant dares to misinform his government , that's a treason, simply because it doesn't conform to your half washed reality it doesn't mean its lies.
Fact is, colonial reports relied heavily on local Intel and that Intel was extremely biased. This is a no-brainer really.
X.Playa wrote:
Again your argument is not based on logic , its based on silly Daarood presumption of tribal hate . 99% of these informants were from your Daarood tribe , that doesn't mean shit , it only means those who had access to the dervish via geographical proximity or marriage relationships hailed from your own tribe. Those simple basic facts debunks your tribal bogyman .
Now I dare you to show us or give an example of the papers you have that conveys "unflattering" image of the H.Y or Isaaq? I know for a fact you are a liar and desperately seeking a way to refute the facts on these intelligence papers, or interviews of so called "informants" , but your end can't justify the means, because these solid impartial archives tells a truth that you and your folks hate it doesn't mean they are falls.
cyanide wrote:Since they always boast about having contact with Yemen it's safe to say this was a Isaak woman from 1870
The colonialists had little presence in the Warsangeli protectorate and were at war with the dhulbahante so how on earth would 99% of their reports have been based on Daarood reports? As for access through geographical proximity and intermarriage then there are several Isaaq tribes who heavily intermarry with daaroods and live in close proximity to them.X.Playa wrote:Again your argument is not based on logic , its based on silly Daarood presumption of tribal hate . 99% of these informants were from your Daarood tribe , that doesn't mean shit , it only means those who had access to the dervish via geographical proximity or marriage relationships hailed from your own tribe. Those simple basic facts debunks your tribal bogyman .Raganimo wrote:This stupid argument does not hold water from an academic perspective. We need to know what these reports were based on. Were they based on information that was fed to them by Somalis? If so, what tribe were these somalis from? Do I really have to explain to you how, say, an Isaaq informant would have an interest in disseminating unflattering/negative information about an enemy tribe? I have access to reports by these same colonialists that are extremely unflattering about Isaaqs, particularly the HY, yet I would be foolish to take them at face value without considering the type of Intel that they were based upon.X.Playa wrote:These are called intelligence papers and those papers have zero shreds of any misinformation because my little jaahil boy its directed to inform the British government and no British colonial servant dares to misinform his government , that's a treason, simply because it doesn't conform to your half washed reality it doesn't mean its lies.
Fact is, colonial reports relied heavily on local Intel and that Intel was extremely biased. This is a no-brainer really.
Now I dare you to show us or give an example of the papers you have that conveys "unflattering" image of the H.Y or Isaaq? I know for a fact you are a liar and desperately seeking a way to refute the facts on these intelligence papers, or interviews of so called "informants" , but your end can't justify the means, because these solid impartial archives tells a truth that you and your folks hate it doesn't mean they are falls.
Who was talking about Warsangali???? all of a sudden you pull your small sub clan's and inject it into a general discussion about the veracity of colonial reports/intelligence gathering!! for your information the British had a full presence in Las Qori and full access to your half Bunjabi sultan so much that they knew his illegitimate origin as far back as the early 1900 , that he was the bastard son of a Garaad Cali's wife and an Indian trader. All their servant , soldiers , and informants hailed form that particular clan.The colonialists had little presence in the Warsangeli protectorate and were at war with the dhulbahante so how on earth would 99% of their reports have been based on Daarood reports? As for access through geographical proximity and intermarriage then there are several Isaaq tribes who heavily intermarry with daaroods and live in close proximity to them.
Use your common sense. Why don't you just do us all a favour and admit that you're pulling these "facts" out of your ass? You have no clue where these reports actually came from because for the most part, no somali source is cited. What you have is basically the words of a colonialists who provides zero references, and you just run with it whenever it conforms to your tribal biases and reject it when it contradicts them.
You're a propagandist, not an objective researcher.
I have papers that refer to the "Edoors" basically as immoral barbarians who live in a state of anarchy, while they praise Warsangeli for being civilised. I'm sure you will scrutinize their authenticity and question their reliability once I post them though... Lol..
I used Warsangeli to illustrate a point sxb.X.Playa wrote:Who was talking about Warsangali???? all of a sudden you pull your small sub clan's and inject it into a general discussion about the veracity of colonial reports/intelligence gathering!! for your information the British had a full presence in Las Qori and full access to your half Bunjabi sultan so much that they knew his illegitimate origin as far back as the early 1900 , that he was the bastard son of a Garaad Cali's wife and an Indian trader. All their servant , soldiers , and informants hailed form that particular clan.The colonialists had little presence in the Warsangeli protectorate and were at war with the dhulbahante so how on earth would 99% of their reports have been based on Daarood reports? As for access through geographical proximity and intermarriage then there are several Isaaq tribes who heavily intermarry with daaroods and live in close proximity to them.
Use your common sense. Why don't you just do us all a favour and admit that you're pulling these "facts" out of your ass? You have no clue where these reports actually came from because for the most part, no somali source is cited. What you have is basically the words of a colonialists who provides zero references, and you just run with it whenever it conforms to your tribal biases and reject it when it contradicts them.
You're a propagandist, not an objective researcher.
I have papers that refer to the "Edoors" basically as immoral barbarians who live in a state of anarchy, while they praise Warsangeli for being civilised. I'm sure you will scrutinize their authenticity and question their reliability once I post them though... Lol..
Refering to some H.Y as savage and some Warsangali seamen as civilized amounts to nothing,.
Source: Cruttenden, C. J. "Memoir on the Western or Edoor Tribes with Southern Branches of the Family of Darrood. London: Royal Geographical Society. Vol. 19 (1849), pp. 49-76It is worthy of remark that in this tribe theft
is looked upon with abhorrence; and though, in the event of a
wreck, the natives lvould doubtless consider it fair to plunder,
still during my stay amongst them, though many a tempting
opportunity of pilfering occurred, not an article was lost. To
call a man a thief is a deadly insult, to be washed out by
blood alone. Pity it is that the Somali tribes of the Edoor
have not the same prejudice in favour of honesty.
Source:separate into two classes, those of the :-
(I) Darod tribes-Warsangeli, Mijertain, Dolbahanta, etc.,
which inhabit, roughly speaking, the eastern and less known
side of the country, and the adjacent part of Italian Somaliland.
(2) Ishaak tribes-Habr Yunis, Habr Awal, Habr Toljalla, etc.,
which inhabit the rest of the country.
North-Eastern British Somaliland
Author(s): C. L. Collenette
Source: Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew), Vol. 1931, No.
8 (1931), pp. 401-414
Published by: Springer on behalf of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4102528
Accessed: 24-08-2016 20:53 UTC
Again you have zero evidence for your assertion and all emotions , you have zero evidence that proves the isaaq bogyman were behind the rumor that the warsangali sultan was illegitimate son of an Indian trader , as usual you blame isaaq for all your social ills. I care less if his mother was Isaaq or chines , fact is that report has more legitimacy and it was spread by the Warsangali themselves and it has some veracity given his unique non-Somali features and pure Punjabi features.I used Warsangeli to illustrate a point sxb.
As for the Suldaan, then his origin was never in dispute and his lineage is known. The insult to his lineage certainly did not come from a Warsangeli. Most likely it came from one of your hateful ancestors. Again, use a bit of critical thinking. Somalis place a great deal of importance upon lineage, especially the lineage of a tribal chief. You would have to be retarded to believe in this stupid fairytale.
Do you realise that his mother was from your tribe? She was Musa Carre of HY. You accuse your own grandmother of adultery to score a cheap point. That is very shameful.
What do you have to say about this accounts? Was your tribe naturally dishonest?
