SomaliNet Forums

... one's behaviour.

This is almost like racism, or tribalism I call it. It's like saying "All blacks are in gang" or whatever like that. If you do really think that being in particular clan does have an effect on one's behaviour, you need to go back to primary school and learn that only the environmental factors that will affect one's behaviour. Even if genetics has slight effect, it wouldn't even be noticeable because EVERY SOMALIS ARE THE SAME GENETICALLY dammit.

Example:

All Hawiyes are salvages, they should never become president of country.

All Dhullo are so strong that nobody can defeat them.

All Mjs are businessman.

This is like generalising when there is really nothing to generalise as we all the one.

if i was a somali,i would want to be an isaaq they seem to be the most peaceful,progressive and development oriented and the leas qabilistic.

Somalis belong to several clans. When you look closely, the clan concept in somalia is an elusive one. It is like an invisible god. Just like St Clause out there to be worshiped. Its power and influence is usually exaggerated by the low lives; armchair politicians, newly urbanised somalis, the uneducated, the passive folks who would rather live in a bubble, the less intelligent and a few political entrepreneurs who view it as a way to get around and live a life of bounty at the behest of our people. Unfortunately, there are a number of somalis and so called non-somali pseudo intellectuals who give this god the credit it does not command.

The so called Hawiyes could be viewed by the daroods and some rahanweins as savages but within them there is a strong hatred. If the Hawiyas were as tribalists as many non-hawiyes portray them, they would be one of the strongest regions; You are talking about the heartland of somalis. But, the hawiye lad or lass is not generally tribalistic; they are at loggerheads with each other and the sub-clan level. Bare early 1990s, there is no movement called hawiyism. Instead, the Habargedir sa'ad views the habargedir saleeban as enemy number 1. The Waceysle abgaal view the daud as enermy nr. e1 etc.

The daroods too are not homogenous; bare the discourse of the 1990s there is virtually nothing that unites them. The uniting factor of being persecuted by Hawiye in the south and Isaaq in the north lacked potency in the middle of the 1990s when the hawiyes turned against each other. Nowadays, what you have is a process that looks like the hawiye situation; Ogaden vs Marehans, Majeerten vs Mareehans, Marehans against other marehans, warsangeli against majerteen; even the more peaceful xir ( Lelkase) is involved in a fight.

The Rahwanweins; as above.


The Isaqs have succeeded in keeping a social cohesion; but come recognition they will be at each other's throats.


What this show is the shifting dynamics of tribalism; it is only confined to websites and used by people who do not think!

Meru wrote:if i was a somali,i would want to be an isaaq they seem to be the most peaceful,progressive and development oriented and the leas qabilistic.

we already know that what else

Keep your expectations low. Stereotypes, generalizations ,group think and having the last word is the hallmark of these forums.

Meru wrote:if i was a somali,i would want to be an isaaq they seem to be the most peaceful,progressive and development oriented and the leas qabilistic.

Meru wrote:if i was a somali,i would want to be an isaaq they seem to be the most peaceful,progressive and development oriented and the leas qabilistic.

cottdamnnnn

Meru wrote:if i was a somali,i would want to be an isaaq they seem to be the most peaceful,progressive and development oriented and the leas qabilistic.

If you were Somali you would be a bantu who knows his place and never get involves in Somali affairs.

He is right we are the least Qabilistic Somalis and the most progressive

Emperior;

Ma la cuskadaa xini kaneeco?

The_Emperior5 wrote:He is right we are the least Qabilistic Somalis and the most progressive

How can he be right when he is a bantu?

Isn't that a contradiction in term?

934 wrote:

The_Emperior5 wrote:He is right we are the least Qabilistic Somalis and the most progressive

How can he be right when he is a bantu?

Isn't that a contradiction in term?

are you saying bantus are always incorrect

I also read a part of the somaliland bill of rights protecting minorities like bantu,madheban,benadir etc,it was quoted by the UN in a conference,it is a very good document,furthermore if somaliland was fully recognized its economy would be 3rd largest in horn. though i dont want splitting of somalia,i want special status of somaliland.

The_Emperior5 wrote:

934 wrote:

The_Emperior5 wrote:He is right we are the least Qabilistic Somalis and the most progressive

How can he be right when he is a bantu?

Isn't that a contradiction in term?

are you saying bantus are always incorrect

For a bantu to be right will defeat the whole purpose of bantu-ism

If he could be right he wouldn't be bantu.

globetrotter2 wrote:Somalis belong to several clans. When you look closely, the clan concept in somalia is an elusive one. It is like an invisible god. Just like St Clause out there to be worshiped. Its power and influence is usually exaggerated by the low lives; armchair politicians, newly urbanised somalis, the uneducated, the passive folks who would rather live in a bubble, the less intelligent and a few political entrepreneurs who view it as a way to get around and live a life of bounty at the behest of our people. Unfortunately, there are a number of somalis and so called non-somali pseudo intellectuals who give this god the credit it does not command.

The so called Hawiyes could be viewed by the daroods and some rahanweins as savages but within them there is a strong hatred. If the Hawiyas were as tribalists as many non-hawiyes portray them, they would be one of the strongest regions; You are talking about the heartland of somalis. But, the hawiye lad or lass is not generally tribalistic; they are at loggerheads with each other and the sub-clan level. Bare early 1990s, there is no movement called hawiyism. Instead, the Habargedir sa'ad views the habargedir saleeban as enemy number 1. The Waceysle abgaal view the daud as enermy nr. e1 etc.

The daroods too are not homogenous; bare the discourse of the 1990s there is virtually nothing that unites them. The uniting factor of being persecuted by Hawiye in the south and Isaaq in the north lacked potency in the middle of the 1990s when the hawiyes turned against each other. Nowadays, what you have is a process that looks like the hawiye situation; Ogaden vs Marehans, Majeerten vs Mareehans, Marehans against other marehans, warsangeli against majerteen; even the more peaceful xir ( Lelkase) is involved in a fight.

The Rahwanweins; as above.


The Isaqs have succeeded in keeping a social cohesion; but come recognition they will be at each other's throats.


What this show is the shifting dynamics of tribalism; it is only confined to websites and used by people who do not think!

So, you're saying being in clan and loving clans are like worshipping the elders of clan? That's shirk :O

I know there are lazy people who use clan to get things they shouldn't deserve and also use clans to gain power control.

You're generalising whole of clan. You're saying all hawiyes are less tribalist? How do you know this? Some are, some are not. Being in any clan does not make you more or less tribalist.

Hawiye saw Darod as enemy, there's tribalism right here.


So, if you went to one person involved in tribe war. You asked one man "What they did to you that made you go on war with them", the (most) man will say "I don't know, clan elder told me so go on war with them because they are our enemy."

Then you go to another side of tribe war, you ask the same question and you will get the same answer.

Do you see any reason why this happens? There is no reason.

Also, most of tribe wars happen because clan elders couldn't agree on one thing while they should have asked outside third party (Preferably ones from government) for help and this issue would have solved without any problem. This is exactly how western countries solve their problem.

The most of problem happen because of greed. For example, one clan goes another clan's land to seek for water (greedy). Another clan refuses them water (Greedy again). This is reason why I believe that most of world's wars and problem is caused by greed.