People’s upbringings and experiences shape their views. Everyone has biases. You aren’t dealing with tabula rasa. Even if you don’t know about clans, you will learn them from your experiences and what others tell you. Sometimes, these stereotypes are negative, and other times positive. Everyone generalizes, and this is a mental shortcut when overwhelmed with information. You might see exceptionalities but will likely defer to your default. The same could be said with how people see clans.
There are certain things I have pondered about Somalis.
- If clan intermarriages rarely quell clan conflict.
- If the children of women from rival clan unions were not allowed to participate in discussions on clan warfare.
- That tells me there was a two-tier system, and paternal clan membership didn’t ensure all privileges, meaning the maternal clan background mattered in this instance.
- I also wonder why exchange women with rivals as though they are something to be bartered? Also, this solution did not work.
- Women cannot simultaneously be clan ambassadors and clanless. You have to choose.
- Also, why create future liabilities that will attempt to kill their inabti’s clan or will be silenced by their inabti?
Think about it. From a militaristic stance, it doesn’t make sense to multiply someone you deem an enemy. Nor give them access to your kin. To me, it seems like short-term desires are trumping long-term interests. Their strategies failed, and they rarely engaged in self-examination. And then you wonder why some of the most rabid qabilists have a mother from a clan that they consider an opponent.