Footage found of young I.M Lewis in Somalia

[Angelina]

Yes but why do your think Somali mooryans never did the same? Did we have superior morals

Clearly we did. We clearly had strong ethno-pride and knew that whilst we’d fight and kill each other to enslave a Somali was to degrade all Somalis.

Arabs selling and kidnapping free Muslim women isn’t something I only came across now. Harun Al Rashdi for instance had an Arab mum of slave origin who was kidnapped and sold despite being from a Muslim family who lived in what is today’s Saudi’s Southern region.

Slavery was messed up and even free young women would see themselves end up as concubines and whilst it rarely ever happened to Somalis I’m not naive enough to think that only those two Somali girls were the victims especially when we did have greedy Arab merchants going in and out of Somalia.

 

[Angelina]

You have an inferiority and a humiliation kink. What do you not understand with Somalis not having a tradition of selling their own daughters or selling other Somalis from defeated tribes. We dont do that stuff. Arabs do. Thats why every thursday desert bunnies were brought to Somalia to be sold. That cannot be compared to kidnapping of Somali women, who were brought back. One is a single intances, the other brought desert bunnies to Somalia every thursday. View attachment 337074

What the hell is wrong with you? When did I ever say that Somalis kidnapped their women? Can you read? I clearly said that Arab slavers used to that. Who do you think kidnapped those Somali girls? Do you honestly think that was their only attempt? I know it wasn’t Somalis, I’m saying it was the Arabs who tried to kidnap those Somali girls. And if you think that was their only attempt I can sell you a bridge.

Also, you sound like an incel getting excited over trafficked women. Have a bit of shame those desert bunnies you’re calling them were free Muslim women who were victimized and trafficked. Nasty Wallahi. They were NOT slaves.

 

[Chaseyourdreamzz]

Isnt Marka a Biimaal city?

I’ve seen the map that @AraragiKoyomi is talking about hawiye was mentioned living their in the 12th century

 

[CABDULWALI XASAN.]

Ah yes this threads been corrupted by 'Oh oh lets hold our selves accountable here' stfu with that bs thats just a signal for self hating

 

[AraragiKoyomi]

Clearly we did. We clearly had strong ethno-pride and knew that whilst we’d fight and kill each other to enslave a Somali was to degrade all Somalis.

Arabs selling and kidnapping free Muslim women isn’t something I only came across now. Harun Al Rashdi for instance had an Arab mum of slave origin who was kidnapped and sold despite being from a Muslim family who lived in what is today’s Saudi’s Southern region.

Slavery was messed up and even free young women would see themselves end up as concubines and whilst it rarely ever happened to Somalis I’m not naive enough to think that only those two Somali girls were the victims especially when we did have greedy Arab merchants going in and out of Somalia.

I do not but into what you are saying. Kidnapping in Somalia would be impossible. Arabs never stepped into the interior, they stayed in the coast and the coast were ruled by Somalis. Somalis invaded Zanzibar, freed slaves, and Oman paid tribute to the Geledi King. So I dont buy into the humiliation ritual.

 

[Three Moons]

I’m sorry but Somalis link to Arabs isn’t a stretch compared to the British claiming Trojans that are 1000s of miles away with hardly any linguistic and cultural communalities. Somalis are similar to Arabs, live incredibly close to Yemen and share the same religion and many traditions. It
Isn’t a leap to believe this, commonality in light of the fact that we do look like we’re mixed with Asiatics when you compare our appearance to other Africans and on top of that Somalis claimed the Arab connection.

It really wasn’t a stretch for him to come to that conclusion but obviously as an anthropologist, our expectation are way higher even if DNA testing wasn’t available during that time period.

Arabs are more similar to the Persians, Turks or Kurds, yet not the same, nor were they ever portrayed as such, because there was no need to displace them in favour of a higher spot in the global race hierarchy. Similarity or geographic closeness was not the reason for I.M Lewis’s historical misdirection, otherwise he would have adopted that approach with a low hanging fruit like the Semites of Ethiopia, which he didn’t (but his peers did, see the Hamite Theory). The roots of his academic perspective firmly lay in racism and white supremacy, not in a desire to be accurate as to the origins of a unique group of people. To explain all of the ancient harbours, ruins of old cities, religion and facial features, he had to displace Somalis into a higher place in the global hierarchy. A hierarchy where Africans, especially sub-Saharan ones, were considered to be at the bottom, which is why he held on so strongly to the myths. Therefore in his writings everything was founded by the Arabs and at the same time, the Somalis themselves originated from Arabia and conquered the Horn. That is a stretch, especially for a mid-20th century scholar.

 

[Angelina]

View attachment 337075
View attachment 337076View attachment 337077
I do not but into what you are saying. Kidnapping in Somalia would be impossible. Arabs never stepped into the interior, they stayed in the coast and the coast were ruled by Somalis. Somalis invaded Zanzibar, freed slaves, and Oman paid tribute to the Geledi King. So I dont buy into the humiliation ritual.

But they did though? They literally kidnapped two Somali girls, left Somalia and their Mahrams had go find them? You’re contradicting to yourself.

Also, even that Arab men who kidnapped the Yemeni girl had to use a rouse of marriage as a way to take her out of the country and sell her. It was clearly not as clear cut to kidnap Arab Muslim women as well. He had to use trickery.

This isn’t a humiliation ritual. I’m saying stop being such a loser incel getting excited over kidnapped and abused Muslim women.

 

[CABDULWALI XASAN.]

I didn't say we look down on merchants like blacksmiths, but merchants were never high on the social ladder unless you got rich from it, in most cases would be a slave trader. The average man trading fruits and vegetables and incense making honest but minor lacag wouldn't be seen as some high ranking member of society.

Merchants and good sellers are very close toghether, My realitive up the line use to be a very well known merchant who also owned businesses he lent out to other people. What time period and evidence are you basing it off of. Being im pretty sure merchants are in an elevated position compared to other professions. Uncomparable to trades which are heavily looked down on. In fact you could probably correlate it too merchants just buying the trade made items instead of making them. It couldve originated from there, just a thought

 

[Khaem]

 

[CABDULWALI XASAN.]

But they did though? They literally kidnapped two Somali girls, left Somalia and their Mahrams had go find them? You’re contradicting to yourself.

Also, even that Arab men who kidnapped the Yemeni girl had to use a rouse of marriage as a way to take her out of the country and sell her. It was clearly not as clear cut to kidnap Arab Muslim women as well. He had to use trickery.

This isn’t a humiliation ritual. I’m saying stop being such a loser incel getting excited over kidnapped and abused Muslim women.

Did you not listen to what he wrote, he just told you that happened on single occurrences, not a regular thing. No ones getting happy over kidnapping Muslims. What are you about to do? Cancel and hide history because it hurts your modern feelings. My god some people have problems

 

[AraragiKoyomi]

Merchants and good sellers are very close toghether, My realitive up the line use to be a very well known merchant who also owned businesses he lent out to other people. What time period and evidence are you basing it off of. Being im pretty sure merchants are in an elevated position compared to other professions. Uncomparable to trades which are heavily looked down on. In fact you could probably correlate it too merchants just buying the trade made items instead of making them. It couldve originated from there, just a thought

I think arab merchants were looked down upon, not Somali merchants

 

[Angelina]

Did you not listen to what he wrote, he just told you that happened on single occurrences, not a regular thing. No ones getting happy over kidnapping Muslims. What are you about to do? Cancel and hide history because it hurts your modern feelings. My god some people have problems

Shut up I’m not talking to you. My whole point came from him getting excited over his ancestors enjoying kidnapped Arab women as he put it. Get out of here with your nonsense and don’t speak to me. That was the origin of our discussion so yes, he was indeed getting happy. Ya nacaas.

 

[CABDULWALI XASAN.]

bantu this, bantu thats pan-africanism. A well intentioned movement taken over by apologist. Listen buddy, Your own kin sold off their own people to the western slave trade for goods and influence.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[CABDULWALI XASAN.]

Shut up I’m not talking to you. My whole point came from him getting excited over his ancestors enjoying kidnapped Arab women as he put it. Get out of here with your nonsense and don’t speak to me. That was the origin of our discussion so yes, he was indeed getting happy. Ya nacaas.

If you weren't talking to me, speak in DM's. the point of a forum is to have group discussion. I have the right to reply to anything.
Who wouldnt get happy that their ancestors were the winners? But of course, you know this. So you default to using a strawman arguement. Which is saying that somalis, Horta quick break here. Are you not somali? why do you keep saying HIS ancestors. But anyways let me continue. youre saying that somalis specifically kidnapped arab muslim women. He did NOT say this. He said the ARABS were selling them to somalis. We werent perpetrating this

 

[CABDULWALI XASAN.]

Shut up I’m not talking to you. My whole point came from him getting excited over his ancestors enjoying kidnapped Arab women as he put it. Get out of here with your nonsense and don’t speak to me. That was the origin of our discussion so yes, he was indeed getting happy. Ya nacaas.

Are you a coastal Somali? I think I figured it out.

 

[Khaem]

bantu this, bantu thats pan-africanism. A well intentioned movement taken over by apologist. Listen buddy, Your own kin sold off their own people to the western slave trade for goods and influence.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Let's just relocate them to Tanzania and pay the government off

 

[The alchemist]

Because common sense academics researching British history prevailed in the preceding century, while these same academics pushed historical dishonesty / intentional misdirection unto us.

As a guy who reads a lot of anthropological works, it's impossible to reconcile the fact that the discipline started on colonial grounds, and thus the objectives of the synthesis of literature always prevailed in that direction. The dynamics of the discipline and its broader existence of Western power over the people they "studied" were synchronous. It's extremely naive to think otherwise. This is a very well-understood fact.

I.M Lewis was very selective in the narrative building to support the imperial realities on the ground and there was a sense of divide and conquer, never emphasized Somali achievement as concentrated and always framed Somali presence as peripheral in every collective highlight-worthy context to undermine the then extant realities, so Europeans could manage things better. Lewis was very cognizant that Arab was a mythology for Somali clans but later you see it used as a way to deemphasize the sense of Somali collective peoplehood and their historical links to power structures, regional land centralities, economic force, and city funding and management. It was more as a tool for regulation of undermining Somali historical presence, and power and a way to push things to the margins. So the common sense we're talking about was very much present in his mind but the guy had an exotic fascination for Somalis but also very strong contempt that never came off through reactionary revenge plot weaving but a quite deliberate oriental colonialist establishment to create a historical and anthropological precedent that could benefit the imperial projects and their trajectory of power control.

Anthropology was used to deconstruct the Somali people in parts. Nomads and Somalis in sedentary conditions were according to many of those charlatans different people and not part of the same broader economic flow.

You might think I am doing some woke pan-African nonsense peddling right now but here is straight from the horse's mouth, you don't even need to rely on my insight at all, because I know a lot of useful fools here who are very happy with how Somalis are portrayed as nothing more than degenerates so they can further their current ideology:

You might wonder, what is the Colonial Social Science Research Council? Well, Wikipedia explicitly says things as I wrote it, by the way, I found this source after I wrote the three first paragraphs and there is no coincidence about it, it was very apparent.

"The Colonial Social Science Research Council (CSSRC) was an expert panel established in the United Kingdom in 1944 under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act 1940 in order to advise the Secretary of State for the Colonies on research funding in sociology and anthropology relating to colonial development. In 1949 it was chaired by Alexander Carr-Saunders and its members consisted of Frank Debenham, Raymond Firth, Harry Hodson, Margery Perham, Arnold Plant, Margaret Helen Read, Godfrey Thomson, and Ralph Lilley Turner."

Notice how funding and objectives in anthropology and sociology directly related to how to inform colonial policies on the ground, just as I have said.

The problem was that people think the works of I.M Lewis were what we consider today's anthropology... no. He was a colonialist researcher. Anthropology today has a very different face than its beginning when it was actually a colonialist tool to construct colonial objectives. It was never objective work trying to understand through a scholarly research lens alone.

This is one example of how Lewis's text undermines Somalis' collective abilities in organizing to proceed and agree to a contractual agreement, something that was very much present by all people on the planet, verbally or on text, to promote the colonial imposition as not only neutral (lie) third party (framing colonialists as merely a helping third hand) but also an improvement for development in doing the bare minimum social contract, something that humans have done for thousands of years irrespective of sophistication. Primitvizing Somalis prior to colonialism was a tool to promote colonialism on literature grounds as a force for good in how they develop colonial subjects structurally:

An anthropologist like Lewis knows for a fact that human beings cannot function without a social contract, yet he had no issue in fabricating that. Heck, Somali territories, and clan mergers, and traditional stratifications, were all due to very long-standing and dynamic contractual agreements some nature of those agreements actually lasted thousands of years and because of cultural and traditional features, customs. This is so rudimentary and we all know this man I.M Lewis knew this, despite that, he peddled lies for colonialism, moreover, he had no issue undermining Somalis by default of that endeavor, it was his goal as a colonial agent.

Much of what I said here is very original to my insight. Still, this is exactly what scholarships done by Edward Said, the first one to coin and define "Orientalism," described, the link between imperialism's use of not only studying but also redefining targets to inform upon a policy that would aid in imperialism - anthropology was established and used for this very reason:

Note the emphasis on policy and revisionism. Rings bells, right? Well, these colonialist-associated scholars were doing the same thing. As I mentioned earlier it was to reconstruct and draw lines differently in ways that would indoctrinate Somalis who went through formal colonial schooling to feed them macro-historical and macro-structural lies, lies about economic, spatial, and organizational lies. I always wondered why anthropology never set to draw the true economic sophistication of the Somali coast and hinterlands and how uniquely efficient it was, spanning a deep and complex network that bore fruits of many historical moments and powers. Well, the truth is, that it was against their interests. They would always yield towards the lowest mean, and if there was none, they invented a lower-hanging fruit to keep the discourse as ignorant as possible.

Does this mean I have not benefitted from Lewis's work? Of course, I have. But I know exactly what I am delving into, and the truths concentrated always lie in fragments (like the compilation of how aw-Barkhadle was the 5th paternal ancestor of the first sultan of Ifat). Most people don't. They think, at worst this is biased in a personal cute sense, or provincial, maybe circumstantially incorrect, isolated in the errors, not how it is a preconditional procedural form-based categorically manipulative, revisionist machinery untangling webs carefully, all to set policy in a very direct, aware and malicious manner to basically conquer a people, reduce them in ways they thought it was most effective to rule. They did that effectively by writing about the people, and their history, redefining everything. Through such measures, they speak their own systematic language, not the language of the systems observed.

I am probably one of the guys that have read most of such literature for research purposes but I am probably the least fooled as well. You cannot "read" it, you have to go in with a higher-order analysis, and critique, never take things for granted, and always have suspicion for basically absolutely everything. That is why, at fault for seeming condescending, I never cite these oriental books because I know most people free-flow read and then I am doing just more harm than good. I would rather actually write down a synthesis of the culmination of my knowledge with the wisdom of avoiding all the false information that is actually much more arduous than it sounds because I never write down irresponsible lies, and I usually back my stuff up with other scholarship that is new or rationally explain things based on wide evidence.

 

[Yami]

Yes they do. They believe it with their whole being and chest to such an extent that I don’t bother correcting the old heads since I’ll be attacking their whole belief that they’re qabil leader is an Arab from Yemen and Saudi.
They even told this to Burton in the 1800s with such confidence and now their descendants still walk around saying this. The ones who don’t believe this are the younger gen especially the educated.

Go interview people in Somalia and listen to what they say. Oh wait..we already have that. It’s on YouTube and 70% say with a straight face that their qabil leader is an Arab.

Legendary video

 

[Yami]

Isnt Marka a Biimaal city?

Bimaal are recent migrant to Marka. They used to live beside Isaaq

 

[Midas]

As a guy who reads a lot of anthropological works, it's impossible to reconcile the fact that the discipline started on colonial grounds, and thus the objectives of the synthesis of literature always prevailed in that direction. The dynamics of the discipline and its broader existence of Western power over the people they "studied" were synchronous. It's extremely naive to think otherwise. This is a very well-understood fact.

I.M Lewis was very selective in the narrative building to support the imperial realities on the ground and there was a sense of divide and conquer, never emphasized Somali achievement as concentrated and always framed Somali presence as peripheral in every collective highlight-worthy context to undermine the then extant realities, so Europeans could manage things better. Lewis was very cognizant that Arab was a mythology for Somali clans but later you see it used as a way to deemphasize the sense of Somali collective peoplehood and their historical links to power structures, regional land centralities, economic force, and city funding and management. It was more as a tool for regulation of undermining Somali historical presence, and power and a way to push things to the margins. So the common sense we're talking about was very much present in his mind but the guy had an exotic fascination for Somalis but also very strong contempt that never came off through reactionary revenge plot weaving but a quite deliberate oriental colonialist establishment to create a historical and anthropological precedent that could benefit the imperial projects and their trajectory of power control.

Anthropology was used to deconstruct the Somali people in parts. Nomads and Somalis in sedentary conditions were according to many of those charlatans different people and not part of the same broader economic flow.

You might think I am doing some woke pan-African nonsense peddling right now but here is straight from the horse's mouth, you don't even need to rely on my insight at all, because I know a lot of useful fools here who are very happy with how Somalis are portrayed as nothing more than degenerates so they can further their current ideology:
View attachment 337078

You might wonder, what is the Colonial Social Science Research Council? Well, Wikipedia explicitly says things as I wrote it, by the way, I found this source after I wrote the three first paragraphs and there is no coincidence about it, it was very apparent.

"The Colonial Social Science Research Council (CSSRC) was an expert panel established in the United Kingdom in 1944 under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act 1940 in order to advise the Secretary of State for the Colonies on research funding in sociology and anthropology relating to colonial development. In 1949 it was chaired by Alexander Carr-Saunders and its members consisted of Frank Debenham, Raymond Firth, Harry Hodson, Margery Perham, Arnold Plant, Margaret Helen Read, Godfrey Thomson, and Ralph Lilley Turner."

Notice how funding and objectives in anthropology and sociology directly related to how to inform colonial policies on the ground, just as I have said.

The problem was that people think the works of I.M Lewis were what we consider today's anthropology... no. He was a colonialist researcher. Anthropology today has a very different face than its beginning when it was actually a colonialist tool to construct colonial objectives. It was never objective work trying to understand through a scholarly research lens alone.

View attachment 337081

This is one example of how Lewis's text undermines Somalis' collective abilities in organizing to proceed and agree to a contractual agreement, something that was very much present by all people on the planet, verbally or on text, to promote the colonial imposition as not only neutral (lie) third party (framing colonialists as merely a helping third hand) but also an improvement for development in doing the bare minimum social contract, something that humans have done for thousands of years irrespective of sophistication. Primitvizing Somalis prior to colonialism was a tool to promote colonialism on literature grounds as a force for good in how they develop colonial subjects structurally:View attachment 337082

An anthropologist like Lewis knows for a fact that human beings cannot function without a social contract, yet he had no issue in fabricating that. Heck, Somali territories, and clan mergers, and traditional stratifications, were all due to very long-standing and dynamic contractual agreements some nature of those agreements actually lasted thousands of years and because of cultural and traditional features, customs. This is so rudimentary and we all know this man I.M Lewis knew this, despite that, he peddled lies for colonialism, moreover, he had no issue undermining Somalis by default of that endeavor, it was his goal as a colonial agent.

Much of what I said here is very original to my insight. Still, this is exactly what scholarships done by Edward Said, the first one to coin and define "Orientalism," described, the link between imperialism's use of not only studying but also redefining targets to inform upon a policy that would aid in imperialism - anthropology was established and used for this very reason:View attachment 337084

Note the emphasis on policy and revisionism. Rings bells, right? Well, these colonialist-associated scholars were doing the same thing. As I mentioned earlier it was to reconstruct and draw lines differently in ways that would indoctrinate Somalis who went through formal colonial schooling to feed them macro-historical and macro-structural lies, lies about economic, spatial, and organizational lies. I always wondered why anthropology never set to draw the true economic sophistication of the Somali coast and hinterlands and how uniquely efficient it was, spanning a deep and complex network that bore fruits of many historical moments and powers. Well, the truth is, that it was against their interests. They would always yield towards the lowest mean, and if there was none, they invented a lower-hanging fruit to keep the discourse as ignorant as possible.

Does this mean I have not benefitted from Lewis's work? Of course, I have. But I know exactly what I am delving into, and the truths concentrated always lie in fragments (like the compilation of how aw-Barkhadle was the 5th paternal ancestor of the first sultan of Ifat). Most people don't. They think, at worst this is biased in a personal cute sense, or provincial, maybe circumstantially incorrect, isolated in the errors, not how it is a preconditional procedural form-based categorically manipulative, revisionist machinery untangling webs carefully, all to set policy in a very direct, aware and malicious manner to basically conquer a people, reduce them in ways they thought it was most effective to rule. They did that effectively by writing about the people, and their history, redefining everything. Through such measures, they speak their own systematic language, not the language of the systems observed.

I am probably one of the guys that have read most of such literature for research purposes but I am probably the least fooled as well. You cannot "read" it, you have to go in with a higher-order analysis, and critique, never take things for granted, and always have suspicion for basically absolutely everything. That is why, at fault for seeming condescending, I never cite these oriental books because I know most people free-flow read and then I am doing just more harm than good. I would rather actually write down a synthesis of the culmination of my knowledge with the wisdom of avoiding all the false information that is actually much more arduous than it sounds because I never write down irresponsible lies, and I usually back my stuff up with other scholarship that is new or rationally explain things based on wide evidence.

Wow I've never thought of it in as much detail as you have. It makes you realize even with how extreme some historians might seem today that there was a reason where in the place we are today . Although it seems like somali history is one of the more egregious examples of how Ideological the colonial project was. And even today it seems like histories of the horn and african muslim history seems to minimize somalis or outright delete us in the most extreme cases.