Somali slaves: Which Arab nation 'sold' somalia, to Italy, in the 19th century?

[Prince of Lasanod]

You can only sell something you own. If Somalia was sold, then that means that it was owned too.

You can own property. And You can only own people (i.e reduce them to the status of property) if they are your slaves.

Slave: One person owning another person. Right?

So if our people were owned and sold (i.e reduced to the status of property) , then that means that they were slaves.

If they weren't slaves, the sale could have never occurred.

These are horrible facts. But facts nevertheless, and we must acknowledge them before we can move forward as a people.

Every part of Somalia was owned by Somalis. The North East was ruled by the Majerteen Sultanate, the Central was ruled by the Hobyo Sultanate, and the South was ruled by the Geledi sultanate. The Geledi sultanate forced the Omanis to pay tribute to the Somalis due to their military dominance. This is not even discussing the nomads who were conquering the deep lush green lands and governed themselves and where the real expansion was happening.

Now, they did have some influence over the ports of Kismayo but that was about it. It's sad how you think that we were slaves, and look so lowly upon yourself. Somalis are the greatest expansionists in the whole of Africa, and greater Somalia would the be 16th largest country in the world. And you think that measly Arabs could conquer our people? Omanis who number only 2 million today? The Somalis were defeating the greatest superpowers in the world such as Britain and they considered us the most intelligent, and bravest race in Africa. Here are some quotes:

"In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the southward thrust of the Somali peoples was intensified and they pushed still farther towards the Tana River and the fertile coastlands of what is now Kenya. In the nineteenth century the pace grew even faster, and by 1850 they had crossed the Juba. There can be no doubt that had it not been for European intervention the Somalis, pushing before them the Galla and the remnants of other displaced tribes, would by then have swept through Kenya. The local Bantu and Nilotic tribesmen could scarcely have held them for a day, and even the Masai at the height of their power would have proved no sort of a match for the fighting men of the Herti Marehan and Ogaden Somalis."

"Of all the desiccated, bitter, cruel, sunbeaten wildernesses which starve and thirst beyond the edges of Africa's luscious, jungled centre, there cannot be one more Christless than the one which begins at the northern foot of Mount Kenya and stretches to the foothills of Abyssinia, and from there to the dried-out glittering tip of Cape Gardafui where the hot karif winds blow in from where the long sharks race under the thin blue skin of the ocean. You can never think of those wildernesses without thinking of daggers and spears, rolling fierce eyes under mops of dusty black crinkly hair, of mad stubborn camels, rocks too hot to touch, and blood feuds whose origins cannot be remembered, only honoured in the stabbing. But of all the races of Africa there cannot be one better to live among than the most difficult, the proudest, the bravest, the vainest, the most merciless, the friendliest; the Somalis."

"I never saw a Somali who showed any fear of death, which, impressive though it sounds, carries within it the chill of pitilessness and ferocity as well. If you have no fear of death you have none for anybody else's either, but that fearlessness has always been essential to the Somalis who have had to try and survive hunger, disease and thirst while prepared to fight and die against their enemies, their fellow Somalis for pleasure in the blood feud, or the Ethiopians who would like to rule them, or the white men who got in the way for a while."

The Omanis only controlled 10 km into Kenya coasts, which is absolutely nothing. They didn't have any empire, they didn't have any land, they hardly even had any power in the Gulf. Somalis were capturing the fertile lands in Kenya and taking over their land, rivers, and had it not been for European intervention, Kenya would be Somali state by now.

Now what did the Omanis do? They convinced the European powers that they had control of the South Somali coasts, whilst we were conquering the land. Does that make you a slave? That he could convince a white man and you couldn't? So so sad how insecure and pathetic you sound!

 

[DuctTape]

You can only sell something you own. If Somalia was sold, then that means that it was owned too.

You can own property. And You can only own people (i.e reduce them to the status of property) if they are your slaves.

Slave: One person owning another person. Right?

So if our people were owned and sold (i.e reduced to the status of property) , then that means that they were slaves.

If they weren't slaves, the sale could have never occurred.

These are horrible facts. But facts nevertheless, and we must acknowledge them before we can move forward as a people.

Your point is illogical. Owning property or land (in this case Somali land) does not mean that you own the people living on said land. All it means is that the land in Somalia changed hands between different rulers. By your logic, if I own a house that I live in with my family, I also own my family members, and by selling the house to someone else, I am selling my family as slaves to other people. When were our people owned and sold? You're doing a whole lot of mental gymnastics here. Please elaborate your point because all of your other points have had logical backing behind them with sources - I have a feeling I might be misunderstanding you here.

 

[Ferrari]

Parts of the south was sold to Italy but I don't understand what that has to do with slavery?

Wallahi if they tried to then the mighty Ogadens who conquered Jubbaland from the Gallas and Madows in the 19th century would have massacred them. Though it was haraam for these Arabs to enslave fellow Muslims, regardless.

There is a document case of Arabs being killed in kismayo for attempting to take a Somali as a slave. They are killled and had their head put on display. I will post the link when I get home. The Somalis were never slaved as a whole. There might have been isolated cases where individuals were captured or stolen and taken as slaves but the Arabs or whites never came to somalia as a source for slaves.

 

[DuctTape]

There is a document case of Arabs being killed in kismayo for attempting to take a Somali as a slave. They are killled and had their head put on display. I will post the link when I get home. The Somalis were never slaved as a whole. There might have been isolated cases where individuals were captured or stolen and taken as slaves but the Arabs or whites never came to somalia as a source for slaves.

Damn
That's a little excessive but it sets an example effectively

 

[Prince of Lasanod]

There is a document case of Arabs being killed in kismayo for attempting to take a Somali as a slave. They are killled and had their head put on display. I will post the link when I get home. The Somalis were never slaved as a whole. There might have been isolated cases where individuals were captured or stolen and taken as slaves but the Arabs or whites never came to somalia as a source for slaves.

It's insane how these BLM fanatics think that Arab traders can come into Somalia and take our people as slaves, yet our Habesha neighbors who have tried to enter our lands with forces over 30,000 multiple times even in the 19th century get slaughtered!

 

[TheSayid]

so oman owned the whole coast of "Italian somaliland", sorry but thats bullshit what a stupid map.

 

[Ferrari]

@Prince of Lasanod @DuctTape @Caraweelo X @Madara x

"Wallace Blake was mentioned in Mr Jenner’s despatches to Sir Arthur
Hardinge when reporting on the Ogaden rebellion of 7th November 1898.
13 This particular episode of disruption started on March 22nd when
Ogaden warriors murdered three Arabs in protest against slave trading
restrictions. In reprisal, twenty-six cattle belonging to the incriminated
tribe were seized by the administration. Later the Ogadens killed several
African Police constables."

How can slaves fight back and kill slave traders? If we were owned and enslaved, would would the british send their forces into our lands to "pacify us"? Let me post some more on what the british's mission was:

"ultimate price like those involved in the Benin massacre of 1897.16 He
would not be the last; Harry St Galt 17 and OS Crewe-Read 18 were also
murdered through a mixture of carelessness and over confidence.
Wallace Blake was deputised to obtain statements from witnesses. One
Ibrahim Guled reports that:
At 4 o clock in the morning on the 16th I saw a lot of Ogadens rush into Mr Jenners
camp; many men seized me and held me, and I saw the tents of Mr Jenner come
down. 19
A policeman, Yusef Galeid tells how Omar Magan spied on the camp on
several occasions was allowed by Jenner to fire his own gun. ‘ He was no
doubt spying, and gave the news of the weakness of the escort to the
Ogadens’ 20 Hassan Koshin, a goat driver provided the following
testimony"

I guess the guy whose head was paraded around was an English commander:
"When Mr Jenner saw his men being attacked, he tried personally, unarmed as he
was, to assist them; he kicked one man and threw himself on another, bearing him to
the ground. Then all the Somalis rushed him and stabbed him to death. I saw Mr
Jenner’s dead body. I saw them carry his head-it was stuck on a knife; they then tied it
to a rope and carried it about all day"

This tells us couple things: , the Somalis were causing problems from the kismayo Area as far as near Tanzania and the british sent an army to punish them and they called this "ogaden punitive force of 1900, 1897, 1906, 1917" because it happened several times. It was the British who stopped Somali nomads crossing boarders and killing natives in the Kenya area. So the question that one must ask is how can people who the british was trying to stop be willingly enslaved? It makes no sense because the british empire was the biggest power around this time and even they were having difficulties telling the somalis what to do. So how can the Arabs?

Also the obvious question is, if there even was slavery of somalis, how come we have never heard of it? Somalis kept history via poetry and other oral methods. How come none of the known poets spoke about this? We have poems that isaqs and ogadens exchanged 200 years ago but we don't have any mention of somali slavery? You'd think tribal skirmishes would be less significant than a supposed 1000 years of slavery but the former is known and nothing is known about that latter? Somalis being enslaved would be an even to talk about and it wouldn't disappear under the radar.

If you folks want to be self haters and fit in with the AA's who, despite knowing their slavery history, don't care to change things and make live better for themselves, then do so by do not do it at the expense of the rest of us. We were never enslaved and inshallah we'll never be.

 

[Madara x]

Every part of Somalia was owned by Somalis. The North East was ruled by the Majerteen Sultanate, the Central was ruled by the Hobyo Sultanate, and the South was ruled by the Geledi sultanate. The Geledi sultanate forced the Omanis to pay tribute to the Somalis due to their military dominance. This is not even discussing the nomads who were conquering the deep lush green lands and governed themselves and where the real expansion was happening.

Now, they did have some influence over the ports of Kismayo but that was about it. It's sad how you think that we were slaves, and look so lowly upon yourself. Somalis are the greatest expansionists in the whole of Africa, and greater Somalia would the be 16th largest country in the world. And you think that measly Arabs could conquer our people? Omanis who number only 2 million today? The Somalis were defeating the greatest superpowers in the world such as Britain and they considered us the most intelligent, and bravest race in Africa. Here are some quotes:

"In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the southward thrust of the Somali peoples was intensified and they pushed still farther towards the Tana River and the fertile coastlands of what is now Kenya. In the nineteenth century the pace grew even faster, and by 1850 they had crossed the Juba. There can be no doubt that had it not been for European intervention the Somalis, pushing before them the Galla and the remnants of other displaced tribes, would by then have swept through Kenya. The local Bantu and Nilotic tribesmen could scarcely have held them for a day, and even the Masai at the height of their power would have proved no sort of a match for the fighting men of the Herti Marehan and Ogaden Somalis."

"Of all the desiccated, bitter, cruel, sunbeaten wildernesses which starve and thirst beyond the edges of Africa's luscious, jungled centre, there cannot be one more Christless than the one which begins at the northern foot of Mount Kenya and stretches to the foothills of Abyssinia, and from there to the dried-out glittering tip of Cape Gardafui where the hot karif winds blow in from where the long sharks race under the thin blue skin of the ocean. You can never think of those wildernesses without thinking of daggers and spears, rolling fierce eyes under mops of dusty black crinkly hair, of mad stubborn camels, rocks too hot to touch, and blood feuds whose origins cannot be remembered, only honoured in the stabbing. But of all the races of Africa there cannot be one better to live among than the most difficult, the proudest, the bravest, the vainest, the most merciless, the friendliest; the Somalis."

"I never saw a Somali who showed any fear of death, which, impressive though it sounds, carries within it the chill of pitilessness and ferocity as well. If you have no fear of death you have none for anybody else's either, but that fearlessness has always been essential to the Somalis who have had to try and survive hunger, disease and thirst while prepared to fight and die against their enemies, their fellow Somalis for pleasure in the blood feud, or the Ethiopians who would like to rule them, or the white men who got in the way for a while."

The Omanis only controlled 10 km into Kenya coasts, which is absolutely nothing. They didn't have any empire, they didn't have any land, they hardly even had any power in the Gulf. Somalis were capturing the fertile lands in Kenya and taking over their land, rivers, and had it not been for European intervention, Kenya would be Somali state by now.

Now what did the Omanis do? They convinced the European powers that they had control of the South Somali coasts, whilst we were conquering the land. Does that make you a slave? That he could convince a white man and you couldn't? So so sad how insecure and pathetic you sound!

Your opinions are quite elaborate. But they are opinions nonetheless.

Only in the first and last paragraphs of your rant, did you address the contents of the video. The rest was just imagined self-esteem building rhetoric about Somali-superiority and our mightiness etc. Also, You did not support any of your claims (where you addressed the video content) with any text-based evidence.

So i'll take a guess, and say that your'e just making up your own mythological version of 'what happened'.

Anyways, I Appreciate that you shared how you feel.

Long live the dervish dream

 

[Madara x]

Your point is illogical. Owning property or land (in this case Somali land) does not mean that you own the people living on said land. All it means is that the land in Somalia changed hands between different rulers. By your logic, if I own a house that I live in with my family, I also own my family members, and by selling the house to someone else, I am selling my family as slaves to other people. When were our people owned and sold? You're doing a whole lot of mental gymnastics here. Please elaborate your point because all of your other points have had logical backing behind them with sources - I have a feeling I might be misunderstanding you here.

I feel like you diu dn't watch the videos. So please look it over and you will understand what i am saying. Also, we the comparison you made is misleading. A house is not a nation. Relatives are not colonized subjects. A comparison cannot be drawn here because the context of the two situations is very different.

I will ask you this tho, if someone came to your house, and said that they own it, would accept it or fight them?

 

[Madara x]

so oman owned the whole coast of "Italian somaliland", sorry but thats bullshit what a stupid map.

lol seems like you watched the videos.
Or maybe you just skimmed the pdf

Both way's thanks for the comment.And if you disagree wit the content then provide alternative sources that contradict the information that was presented.

I'm waiting for someone to prove to me that info is wrong

 

[Madara x]

@Prince of Lasanod @DuctTape @Caraweelo X @Madara x

"Wallace Blake was mentioned in Mr Jenner’s despatches to Sir Arthur
Hardinge when reporting on the Ogaden rebellion of 7th November 1898.
13 This particular episode of disruption started on March 22nd when
Ogaden warriors murdered three Arabs in protest against slave trading
restrictions. In reprisal, twenty-six cattle belonging to the incriminated
tribe were seized by the administration. Later the Ogadens killed several
African Police constables."

How can slaves fight back and kill slave traders? If we were owned and enslaved, would would the british send their forces into our lands to "pacify us"? Let me post some more on what the british's mission was:

"ultimate price like those involved in the Benin massacre of 1897.16 He
would not be the last; Harry St Galt 17 and OS Crewe-Read 18 were also
murdered through a mixture of carelessness and over confidence.
Wallace Blake was deputised to obtain statements from witnesses. One
Ibrahim Guled reports that:
At 4 o clock in the morning on the 16th I saw a lot of Ogadens rush into Mr Jenners
camp; many men seized me and held me, and I saw the tents of Mr Jenner come
down. 19
A policeman, Yusef Galeid tells how Omar Magan spied on the camp on
several occasions was allowed by Jenner to fire his own gun. ‘ He was no
doubt spying, and gave the news of the weakness of the escort to the
Ogadens’ 20 Hassan Koshin, a goat driver provided the following
testimony"

I guess the guy whose head was paraded around was an English commander:
"When Mr Jenner saw his men being attacked, he tried personally, unarmed as he
was, to assist them; he kicked one man and threw himself on another, bearing him to
the ground. Then all the Somalis rushed him and stabbed him to death. I saw Mr
Jenner’s dead body. I saw them carry his head-it was stuck on a knife; they then tied it
to a rope and carried it about all day"

This tells us couple things: , the Somalis were causing problems from the kismayo Area as far as near Tanzania and the british sent an army to punish them and they called this "ogaden punitive force of 1900, 1897, 1906, 1917" because it happened several times. It was the British who stopped Somali nomads crossing boarders and killing natives in the Kenya area. So the question that one must ask is how can people who the british was trying to stop be willingly enslaved? It makes no sense because the british empire was the biggest power around this time and even they were having difficulties telling the somalis what to do. So how can the Arabs?

Also the obvious question is, if there even was slavery of somalis, how come we have never heard of it? Somalis kept history via poetry and other oral methods. How come none of the known poets spoke about this? We have poems that isaqs and ogadens exchanged 200 years ago but we don't have any mention of somali slavery? You'd think tribal skirmishes would be less significant than a supposed 1000 years of slavery but the former is known and nothing is known about that latter? Somalis being enslaved would be an even to talk about and it wouldn't disappear under the radar.

If you folks want to be self haters and fit in with the AA's who, despite knowing their slavery history, don't care to change things and make live better for themselves, then do so by do not do it at the expense of the rest of us. We were never enslaved and inshallah we'll never be.

First of all good job on your reply.
You've made some good arguments and i want to commend you for that.

With that said, let's get down to the business.

First of all, no one disputes the bravery and strength of our people. We run shit.
I'm sure that when the Arabs came to our territories they faced unending resistance.
White heads on spikes, etc

In regards to your first question "how can people who the british was trying to stop be willingly enslaved?".

My reply is this: we did not willingly accept enslavement. This is just impossible. But we were defeated, because we couldn't fight the Arabs and the Aryans. Because We didn't have the military strength or endurance.

If we did have strength, then the 'sale of somalia', which i prove in the videos, would have never happened. In fact, there would have never even been an opportunity for the Arabs to declare control over our territories. And to then sell it.

In regards to your second question "if there even was slavery of somalis, how come we have never heard of it? Somalis kept history via poetry and other oral methods. How come none of the known poets spoke about this? We have poems that isaqs and ogadens exchanged 200 years ago but we don't have any mention of somali slavery? You'd think tribal skirmishes would be less significant than a supposed 1000 years of slavery but the former is known and nothing is known about that latter?"

I will reply to you by quoting specific portions for a book titled 'the wretched of the earth'. Please pay attention to underlined portion, as it explains why 'we' as a people tend to focus on tribal skirmishes more than our 'enslavement'.

“The muscular tension of the colonized periodically erupts into bloody fighting between tribes, clans, and individuals. At the individual level we witness a genuine negation of common sense. Whereas the colonist or police officer can beat the colonized subject day in and day out, insult him and shove him to his knees, it is not uncommon to see the colonized subject draw his knife at the slightest hostile or aggressive look from another colonized subject.”pg.17

“The colonized subject’s last resort [for building self-esteem] is to defend his personality against his fellow countryman. Internecine feuds merely perpetuate age-old grudges entrenched in memory. By throwing himself muscle and soul into his blood feuds, the colonized subject endeavors to convince himself that colonialism never existed, that everything is as it used to be”pg.17

I hope my answer is sufficient. It was a delight engaging you.

Long live the dervish dream

 

[Ferrari]

First of all good job on your reply.
You've made some good arguments and i want to commend you for that.

With that said, let's get down to the business.

First of all, no one disputes the bravery and strength of our people. We run shit.
I'm sure that when the Arabs came to our territories they faced unending resistance.
White heads on spikes, etc

In regards to your first question "how can people who the british was trying to stop be willingly enslaved?".

My reply is this: we did not willingly accept enslavement. This is just impossible. But we were defeated, because we couldn't fight the Arabs and the Aryans. Because We didn't have the military strength or endurance.

If we did have strength, then the 'sale of somalia', which i prove in the videos, would have never happened. In fact, there would have never even been an opportunity for the Arabs to declare control over our territories. And to then sell it.

In regards to your second question "if there even was slavery of somalis, how come we have never heard of it? Somalis kept history via poetry and other oral methods. How come none of the known poets spoke about this? We have poems that isaqs and ogadens exchanged 200 years ago but we don't have any mention of somali slavery? You'd think tribal skirmishes would be less significant than a supposed 1000 years of slavery but the former is known and nothing is known about that latter?"

I will reply to you by quoting specific portions for a book titled 'the wretched of the earth'. Please pay attention to underlined portion, as it explains why 'we' as a people tend to focus on tribal skirmishes more than our 'enslavement'.

“The muscular tension of the colonized periodically erupts into bloody fighting between tribes, clans, and individuals. At the individual level we witness a genuine negation of common sense. Whereas the colonist or police officer can beat the colonized subject day in and day out, insult him and shove him to his knees, it is not uncommon to see the colonized subject draw his knife at the slightest hostile or aggressive look from another colonized subject.”pg.17

“The colonized subject’s last resort [for building self-esteem] is to defend his personality against his fellow countryman. Internecine feuds merely perpetuate age-old grudges entrenched in memory. By throwing himself muscle and soul into his blood feuds, the colonized subject endeavors to convince himself that colonialism never existed, that everything is as it used to be”pg.17

I hope my answer is sufficient. It was a delight engaging you.

Long live the dervish dream

We were defeated by who? Do you have an evidence for this or are you making it up as you go? When did Arabs defeat us anywhere?
Second, why are you quoting me about a book when I asked why it isn't a common knowledge in our community if in fact we had been enslaved in the past? Somalis can trace their history back as far as the days of waaq and cow worshipping but would somehow forget something as big as slavery? How come no one in the somali community knows about this? How come we have never heard of it?

It'll be interesting to see what you say it seems to me that you want somalis to have been enslaved which is why you are saying ridiculous things as 'we were defeated'.

 

[TheSayid]

lol seems like you watched the videos.
Or maybe you just skimmed the pdf

Both way's thanks for the comment.And if you disagree wit the content then provide alternative sources that contradict the information that was presented.

I'm waiting for someone to prove to me that info is wrong

how can they control puntland coast when the majeerteen sultanate was already established in that area?

 

[Madara x]

We were defeated by who? Do you have an evidence for this or are you making it up as you go? When did Arabs defeat us anywhere?
Second, why are you quoting me about a book when I asked why it isn't a common knowledge in our community if in fact we had been enslaved in the past? Somalis can trace their history back as far as the days of waaq and cow worshipping but would somehow forget something as big as slavery? How come no one in the somali community knows about this? How come we have never heard of it?

It'll be interesting to see what you say it seems to me that you want somalis to have been enslaved which is why you are saying ridiculous things as 'we were defeated'.

The answer to your first three questions are all in the video. Cited and everything.

In regards to your fourth question, Somalis have 'selective memory'.
So we delete the shameful things that happened to us and try to bury it.
And as we do that, we distract ourselves with tribal shyt, because its easier to talk shit about the next tribe that's probably in the same socio-economic-political situation as you. It's easier to do this, and it is difficult to deal with our real enemies. The quote was supposed to make this point in a more articulate manner.

But it's all good, not everyone ought to remember everything.

 

[Madara x]

how can they control puntland coast when the majeerteen sultanate was already established in that area?

I don't have the answer to this question. All i can say is that the evidence points towards the fact that we had no say, or the sale would have never happened.

 

[GeKo]

1. Your video has not proved that Somalis were enslaved, only showing that Omani's controlled most of the coast of Somalia which is widely well known and very different from being enslaved.
2. The control of Somali coast wasn't as exploitative as you mentioned it. The Somali Empires allied with the Omani to defeat the Portuguese invasions and traded with them. "In 1660, the Portuguese in Mombasa surrendered to a joint Somali-Omani force." (Tanzania notes and records: the journal of the Tanzania Society pg 76).
3. The Omani sultanate were more of an ally and secured the control of the indian ocean, which was important to Somali empires for trade. The Ottoman Empire was also an ally of the Somali Empires and helped Somalis fight off the Portuguese.
4. As Canuck already stated it was illegal to enslave Somalis since we were Muslims.


Also you may want to look into the relationship between the somali empires that existed and the Omani sultanate more extensively. From the evidence I'm certain that the relationship was not like that of a colonizer and somewhat friendly alliance.

 

[Caraweelo X]

@Prince of Lasanod @DuctTape @Caraweelo X @Madara x

"Wallace Blake was mentioned in Mr Jenner’s despatches to Sir Arthur
Hardinge when reporting on the Ogaden rebellion of 7th November 1898.
13 This particular episode of disruption started on March 22nd when
Ogaden warriors murdered three Arabs in protest against slave trading
restrictions. In reprisal, twenty-six cattle belonging to the incriminated
tribe were seized by the administration. Later the Ogadens killed several
African Police constables."

How can slaves fight back and kill slave traders? If we were owned and enslaved, would would the british send their forces into our lands to "pacify us"? Let me post some more on what the british's mission was:

"ultimate price like those involved in the Benin massacre of 1897.16 He
would not be the last; Harry St Galt 17 and OS Crewe-Read 18 were also
murdered through a mixture of carelessness and over confidence.
Wallace Blake was deputised to obtain statements from witnesses. One
Ibrahim Guled reports that:
At 4 o clock in the morning on the 16th I saw a lot of Ogadens rush into Mr Jenners
camp; many men seized me and held me, and I saw the tents of Mr Jenner come
down. 19
A policeman, Yusef Galeid tells how Omar Magan spied on the camp on
several occasions was allowed by Jenner to fire his own gun. ‘ He was no
doubt spying, and gave the news of the weakness of the escort to the
Ogadens’ 20 Hassan Koshin, a goat driver provided the following
testimony"

I guess the guy whose head was paraded around was an English commander:
"When Mr Jenner saw his men being attacked, he tried personally, unarmed as he
was, to assist them; he kicked one man and threw himself on another, bearing him to
the ground. Then all the Somalis rushed him and stabbed him to death. I saw Mr
Jenner’s dead body. I saw them carry his head-it was stuck on a knife; they then tied it
to a rope and carried it about all day"

This tells us couple things: , the Somalis were causing problems from the kismayo Area as far as near Tanzania and the british sent an army to punish them and they called this "ogaden punitive force of 1900, 1897, 1906, 1917" because it happened several times. It was the British who stopped Somali nomads crossing boarders and killing natives in the Kenya area. So the question that one must ask is how can people who the british was trying to stop be willingly enslaved? It makes no sense because the british empire was the biggest power around this time and even they were having difficulties telling the somalis what to do. So how can the Arabs?

Also the obvious question is, if there even was slavery of somalis, how come we have never heard of it? Somalis kept history via poetry and other oral methods. How come none of the known poets spoke about this? We have poems that isaqs and ogadens exchanged 200 years ago but we don't have any mention of somali slavery? You'd think tribal skirmishes would be less significant than a supposed 1000 years of slavery but the former is known and nothing is known about that latter? Somalis being enslaved would be an even to talk about and it wouldn't disappear under the radar.

If you folks want to be self haters and fit in with the AA's who, despite knowing their slavery history, don't care to change things and make live better for themselves, then do so by do not do it at the expense of the rest of us. We were never enslaved and inshallah we'll never be.

You said "Somalis being enslaved would be an event to talk about" but no it wouldn't lol Arabs barely documented their doings because Slavery was so entrenched in their culture. It's not even an "exact" estimate on the amounts taken. But if you think Arabs didn't enslave Somalis after Somalis converted to Islam just because they became Muslim then you'd need to explain how and why Arab until this day are using and abusing and exploiting Somalis, forcing them into manual labor,

This is from 2016 http://www.hiiraan.com/news4/2016/Jan/103860/despite_abuses_saudi_arabia_aims_to_recruit_15000_somali_maids.aspx

The first picture is from the book Trafficking in Persons Report (10th Ed.)

This article also talks about it http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-somalis-prostitution-idUSTRE61950M20100210

Arabs treat Somalis horribly, today and much of it goes unnoticed by the rest of the Muslim world because the "ummah" doesn't truly care about Black Muslims. That's why no one talks about all the tragedies that are happening in Somalia, everyone just talks about Syria and Palestine and don't get me wrong, we can talk about those issues, but why leave out Black Muslim issues? That happens all the time, there's so much going on in Somalia and Somalis are treated horribly by Arabs, getting called "abeed" yet it all goes relatively unnoticed.

Somalis are being used today, when Somalis are fully Muslim, what makes you think they weren't using Somalis when the Arab Slave Trade in East Africa first started...Again, Arabs referred to Somalis by using the term "Habesha", that's why not a single piece of Islamic/Arabic text has the word "Somali" I posted a picture that talks about how East Africans were referred to as "Habesha" and that location was referred to as the Land of Barbar or Berber.

In the book Slavery and manumission: British Policy in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf by Jerzy Zdanowski, he says "Berbera" because that was one of the terms it was called.

Another thing that is explained in the book "Red Sea from Byzantium to Caliphate" is the fact that Arabs never said "Somali" or "Somalia"

"Frankincense is also known to have been grown in Somalia from early times, though does not feature prominently in the Arabic narrative sources. Agapius (d. 941-2), for instance, perhaps hints at the production of frankincense when he writes of Ethiopia's 'aromatic plants' ('aqaqir). 238 Similarly, al-Istakhri states that the Ethiopians "live scattered on the coastal region opposite Aden. All frankincense (bakhur)... comes from their country." 239 The Arabic kail al-bakhur does indeed translate as 'all the frankincense,' yet this may be a copyist's error for kail bakhur meaning 'every (type) of frankincense.' This could even be translated more loosely as 'every (type) of incense,' which might make more sense given the references to opercula, ambergris and frankincense produced in Ethiopia."

Frankincense is known for being in Somalia however, Arabs never said Somalia, they said Ethiopia because Somalia as a country did not exist, it was engulfed in term the "Land of Barbar"

Look at a map, if you look at the physical boundaries of what they decided to give Somalia, Somalis spill outside of those physical boundaries and are pretty spread out throughout East Africa (Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, etc).

Here's a pdf online copy of the book the Red Sea

 

[Caraweelo X]

1. Your video has not proved that Somalis were enslaved, only showing that Omani's controlled most of the coast of Somalia which is widely well known and very different from being enslaved.
2. The control of Somali coast wasn't as exploitative as you mentioned it. The Somali Empires allied with the Omani to defeat the Portuguese invasions and traded with them. "In 1660, the Portuguese in Mombasa surrendered to a joint Somali-Omani force." (Tanzania notes and records: the journal of the Tanzania Society pg 76).
3. The Omani sultanate were more of an ally and secured the control of the indian ocean, which was important to Somali empires for trade. The Ottoman Empire was also an ally of the Somali Empires and helped Somalis fight off the Portuguese.
4. As Canuck already stated it was illegal to enslave Somalis since we were Muslims.


Also you may want to look into the relationship between the somali empires that existed and the Omani sultanate more extensively. From the evidence I'm certain that the relationship was not like that of a colonizer and somewhat friendly alliance.

I'll say the same thing that I said to a similar comment...
Arabs barely documented their doings because Slavery was so entrenched in their culture. It's not even an "exact" estimate on the amounts taken. But if you think Arabs didn't enslave Somalis after Somalis converted to Islam just because they became Muslim then you'd need to explain how and why Arab until this day are using and abusing and exploiting Somalis, forcing them into manual labor,

This is from 2016 http://www.hiiraan.com/news4/2016/Jan/103860/despite_abuses_saudi_arabia_aims_to_recruit_15000_somali_maids.aspx

The first picture is from the book Trafficking in Persons Report (10th Ed.)

This article also talks about it http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-somalis-prostitution-idUSTRE61950M20100210

Arabs treat Somalis horribly, today and much of it goes unnoticed by the rest of the Muslim world because the "ummah" doesn't truly care about Black Muslims. That's why no one talks about all the tragedies that are happening in Somalia, everyone just talks about Syria and Palestine and don't get me wrong, we can talk about those issues, but why leave out Black Muslim issues? That happens all the time, there's so much going on in Somalia and Somalis are treated horribly by Arabs, getting called "abeed" yet it all goes relatively unnoticed.

Somalis are being used today, when Somalis are fully Muslim, what makes you think they weren't using Somalis when the Arab Slave Trade in East Africa first started...Again, Arabs referred to Somalis by using the term "Habesha", that's why not a single piece of Islamic/Arabic text has the word "Somali" I posted a picture that talks about how East Africans were referred to as "Habesha" and that location was referred to as the Land of Barbar or Berber.

In the book Slavery and manumission: British Policy in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf by Jerzy Zdanowski, he says "Berbera" because that was one of the terms it was called.

Another thing that is explained in the book "Red Sea from Byzantium to Caliphate" is the fact that Arabs never said "Somali" or "Somalia"

"Frankincense is also known to have been grown in Somalia from early times, though does not feature prominently in the Arabic narrative sources. Agapius (d. 941-2), for instance, perhaps hints at the production of frankincense when he writes of Ethiopia's 'aromatic plants' ('aqaqir). 238 Similarly, al-Istakhri states that the Ethiopians "live scattered on the coastal region opposite Aden. All frankincense (bakhur)... comes from their country." 239 The Arabic kail al-bakhur does indeed translate as 'all the frankincense,' yet this may be a copyist's error for kail bakhur meaning 'every (type) of frankincense.' This could even be translated more loosely as 'every (type) of incense,' which might make more sense given the references to opercula, ambergris and frankincense produced in Ethiopia."

Frankincense is known for being in Somalia however, Arabs never said Somalia, they said Ethiopia because Somalia as a country did not exist, it was engulfed in term the "Land of Barbar"

Look at a map, if you look at the physical boundaries of what they decided to give Somalia, Somalis spill outside of those physical boundaries and are pretty spread out throughout East Africa (Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, etc).

Here's a pdf online copy of the book the Red Sea

And as far as it being illegal to sale Somalis, that was in the 1800s because Brits wanted to stop Arabs for going to East Africa to take slaves, which they continued to do so anyways, but here's the full page of what Canuck posted (She posted a foot note which didn't explain the context of it.) If you read the whole page, and not just the foot note, it implies Arabs were still taking Somalis because they had to ban Arabs from doing so.

 

[Somali psycho]

Caraweelo X and Madara X are a disgrace to Somali people every where. instead of dedicating their knowledge to to bring something useful, they using it to defame our name.

 

[cantspeak]

Caraweelo X and Madara X are a disgrace to Somali people every where. instead of dedicating their knowledge to to bring something useful, they using it to defame our name.

When they were talking about Slavery, I assumed it was the systematic society destroying chattel slavery equivalent to the trans atlantic slaves. Its actually just really minor shit. You can barely find any mentions of Somalis being Slaves, just one or two quotes from two arab geographers pre 1000 AD.