As some who follow me and my philosophy I generally do not support identity politics and believe in human rights as my guiding morality which I think fits beautiful with God giving Adam his freedom to be tested, without this freedom, their is no test. I believe in this as a universal principle and do not shy away from it. But let's address why Dr Osman falls down to identity politics in Somalia because 'clan' is in the same category as other identity politics(religion, tribe, gender, ethnicity, economic class).
In the west it is well known that their business elites gutted their unions becuz they didn't like workers united on their economic interest. It also deregulated a-lot so it can increase it's profit without a price interference authority to sell within the purchasing power of the average local.
They have since took control of the donor aspects of both the right and left and why people today will comment they don't see any real idealogical difference between the two, especially the 'center right, center left'. Well obviously if their reporting to business for funds to campaign, they will surely have similar policies or else they won't get those funds.
The left was independent when unions were strong and had their donation stream reporting to it's members, but the business elite foresaw by eliminating it, it can control both parties rather then 1 party(the right). The business elites now demand both parties to focus on identity politics becuz they knew when workers got poorer thru no unions-deregulation of pricing authorities, it would create an 'angry' political climate and they don't want that anger geared towards them but within themselves.
They do this by finding fringe movements or conspiracy theories and work out if it has gained support and run it thru it's mass media by calling the CEO and then force parties to make it a POLITICAL issue. This deflects the locals from uniting on their economic interest and harming their business interest.
The business elite will continue this route by exploiting race, religion, ethnicity, immigration, gender, sexual orientation untill that has come to political expiry. They will then use shared external enemy like the cold war and USSR or China. It may use free world vs dark world alliances.
Now you may ask, since Dr Osman knows identity politics is just used by Somalis for personal interest of their leaders who do the same clan drumming tactic in Somalia, why do I support it? Well I ask in response, why do you support a 'Somali nationalist' leader who uses the ethnicity card to achieve his personal interest? Listen were stuck in identity politics but at least with clan, it can be justified to address on-ground realities.
Politicians don't create the pre-existing identities, but only milk it. Pre-existing identities exist way before and way after a leader. But with clan being our strongest form of identity at the local level and a civil war over clan and power, has provided me with enough confidence that any system that doesn't address clan and serve it, is trying to enforce another foreign system such as nationalism.
Nationalism is only strong in Somalis OUTSIDE Somalia not Inside of it. Even the strength of nationalism I argue is only strong if an external ethnicity is present and a threat and it's not strong on it's own even in foreign countries, this can explain why they can't create a functional Somali wide diaspora committees. But if their is an ethnic threat, then only then is Nationalism strong and even that last link is 'weakening'.
But after observing how clan is a pre-existing identity that has developed over 800-1000 years, after observing Somalis fought over centralized power along clan lines, after seeing that some clan shoulder the burden of Somalinimo(marehan, hartis) but none of the benefits.
I accepted clan as the solution, yes politicians exploit it or clan drum, but that doesn't mean clan is the problem, in-fact it is the solution. Their has been more progress under it then there ever was under a nationalist agenda(1991-2004).
In the west it is well known that their business elites gutted their unions becuz they didn't like workers united on their economic interest. It also deregulated a-lot so it can increase it's profit without a price interference authority to sell within the purchasing power of the average local.
They have since took control of the donor aspects of both the right and left and why people today will comment they don't see any real idealogical difference between the two, especially the 'center right, center left'. Well obviously if their reporting to business for funds to campaign, they will surely have similar policies or else they won't get those funds.
The left was independent when unions were strong and had their donation stream reporting to it's members, but the business elite foresaw by eliminating it, it can control both parties rather then 1 party(the right). The business elites now demand both parties to focus on identity politics becuz they knew when workers got poorer thru no unions-deregulation of pricing authorities, it would create an 'angry' political climate and they don't want that anger geared towards them but within themselves.
They do this by finding fringe movements or conspiracy theories and work out if it has gained support and run it thru it's mass media by calling the CEO and then force parties to make it a POLITICAL issue. This deflects the locals from uniting on their economic interest and harming their business interest.
The business elite will continue this route by exploiting race, religion, ethnicity, immigration, gender, sexual orientation untill that has come to political expiry. They will then use shared external enemy like the cold war and USSR or China. It may use free world vs dark world alliances.
Now you may ask, since Dr Osman knows identity politics is just used by Somalis for personal interest of their leaders who do the same clan drumming tactic in Somalia, why do I support it? Well I ask in response, why do you support a 'Somali nationalist' leader who uses the ethnicity card to achieve his personal interest? Listen were stuck in identity politics but at least with clan, it can be justified to address on-ground realities.
Politicians don't create the pre-existing identities, but only milk it. Pre-existing identities exist way before and way after a leader. But with clan being our strongest form of identity at the local level and a civil war over clan and power, has provided me with enough confidence that any system that doesn't address clan and serve it, is trying to enforce another foreign system such as nationalism.
Nationalism is only strong in Somalis OUTSIDE Somalia not Inside of it. Even the strength of nationalism I argue is only strong if an external ethnicity is present and a threat and it's not strong on it's own even in foreign countries, this can explain why they can't create a functional Somali wide diaspora committees. But if their is an ethnic threat, then only then is Nationalism strong and even that last link is 'weakening'.
But after observing how clan is a pre-existing identity that has developed over 800-1000 years, after observing Somalis fought over centralized power along clan lines, after seeing that some clan shoulder the burden of Somalinimo(marehan, hartis) but none of the benefits.
I accepted clan as the solution, yes politicians exploit it or clan drum, but that doesn't mean clan is the problem, in-fact it is the solution. Their has been more progress under it then there ever was under a nationalist agenda(1991-2004).
Last edited:
