Personally I believe we got put into a system that we don’t understand. What does a person who was a nomad understand about complex markets. I watch a lot of channels that explain history and honestly we are outclassed. But why were we forced into a system we weren’t ready for?
Would somalia be better off colonized
- Thread starter Zakeriya
- Start date
Desert Flower
VIP
True. I think it stems from jealousy because before the civil war, the people who lived in Xamar were considered ilbaax and reer magaal and everyone else outside of Xamar was reer baadiyo. Oh my, how the tables have turned. I just laugh when I hear people make fun of Mogadishu, it lets me know exactly who/ what I’m dealing with: an cuuqdo* ridden individual.
Last edited:
Yes, i agree WITH you. But who would be the daddy for us?
I only see turkey or ethopia as an option for somalia.
Turkey : because we have long history with them. Since ajuran empire time(1500). ajuran empire and ottoman Empire were allies. We used to help each other since that time.
Ethopia: even tho ethopia is our biggest enemy, but its one our biggest shit maker in somali politics, they have their own interest. But we could get a platform from them, we could be the real DDS (killinka 5 and killinka 6) they could be the catalyst for our democracy and creating the somalinimo as ethnicy again
.
I only see turkey or ethopia as an option for somalia.
Turkey : because we have long history with them. Since ajuran empire time(1500). ajuran empire and ottoman Empire were allies. We used to help each other since that time.
Ethopia: even tho ethopia is our biggest enemy, but its one our biggest shit maker in somali politics, they have their own interest. But we could get a platform from them, we could be the real DDS (killinka 5 and killinka 6) they could be the catalyst for our democracy and creating the somalinimo as ethnicy again
.
Statistically speaking no, we were better of under Siad Barre by pretty much every metric more so than Italy. If you think Barre was bad the you clearly didn't read on Somalia under Italy.
This idiotic question appears at least once a month, do you guys not search shit up?
This idiotic question appears at least once a month, do you guys not search shit up?
And then there are these standard stupid replies. A pretty capital doesn't mean jack shit when your literacy rate is fucking abysmal.
I have had somalis laugh at my face during discussions for saying that Somalia needs someone like Erdogan or a Siad Barre 2.0, and then I read the comment from @Desert Flower.. 
Just imagine the amount of madax xanun we can avoid when we even agree on somali politics
...cajib
Just imagine the amount of madax xanun we can avoid when we even agree on somali politics...cajibLoveandLight
LoveandLight the Liberator
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
@Zakeriya
Your argument simply reeks of naivety of what colonialism was all about. It's sole aim was to deny political, economic and social freedom of people deemed to be inferior by the colonisers. It was all for the benefit of cadaanka but most importantly it was not an effective method of setting up long-term prosperity and stability for the subjugated.
Italians invested public services and infrastructure etc for their own benefit so as to maximise exploitation of the available resources. Any benefit that somalis gained was simply a byproduct of these investments as they never were intended for us. Simply posting highly selective pictures from colonial era does nothing to prove that it benefited us nor that it was better, you need actual statistics to prove your case ie that colonialism was indeed better.
Colonial violence, discrimination and repression far exceeded any reciprocal investments in public services, infrastructure , in addition to this majority of the money gained was allocated towards maintaining the colonial government. To simply argue that today's somalia would be better off under colonial rule is nothing but a distortion of history.
If anything your method of evaluating colonialism trivialises the violence and oppression of colonial rule as unspeakable harms can be outweighed simply by stating alleged benefits of colonialism ie building of infrastructure etc. "Yes , we raped somali women but we also opened nursing schools for them" ," We massacred your children but we also opened clinics to vaccinate them" do you now understand how ridiculous this form of argument is ?
Building infrastructure, investing in public services doesn't provide one with the right to oppress and murder people most importantly it's not a justifiable argument for the return of colonialism. It's easy for you to argue for colonialism simply because it never affected you directly had it been different i guarantee you wouldn't even think of it.
Just out of curiosity would you argue for the profiling and internment of all muslims in western countries so as to ensure that we don't harbour extremist views such as those espoused by alqaida alshabab etc ???
Your argument simply reeks of naivety of what colonialism was all about. It's sole aim was to deny political, economic and social freedom of people deemed to be inferior by the colonisers. It was all for the benefit of cadaanka but most importantly it was not an effective method of setting up long-term prosperity and stability for the subjugated.
Italians invested public services and infrastructure etc for their own benefit so as to maximise exploitation of the available resources. Any benefit that somalis gained was simply a byproduct of these investments as they never were intended for us. Simply posting highly selective pictures from colonial era does nothing to prove that it benefited us nor that it was better, you need actual statistics to prove your case ie that colonialism was indeed better.
Colonial violence, discrimination and repression far exceeded any reciprocal investments in public services, infrastructure , in addition to this majority of the money gained was allocated towards maintaining the colonial government. To simply argue that today's somalia would be better off under colonial rule is nothing but a distortion of history.
If anything your method of evaluating colonialism trivialises the violence and oppression of colonial rule as unspeakable harms can be outweighed simply by stating alleged benefits of colonialism ie building of infrastructure etc. "Yes , we raped somali women but we also opened nursing schools for them" ," We massacred your children but we also opened clinics to vaccinate them" do you now understand how ridiculous this form of argument is ?
Building infrastructure, investing in public services doesn't provide one with the right to oppress and murder people most importantly it's not a justifiable argument for the return of colonialism. It's easy for you to argue for colonialism simply because it never affected you directly had it been different i guarantee you wouldn't even think of it.
Just out of curiosity would you argue for the profiling and internment of all muslims in western countries so as to ensure that we don't harbour extremist views such as those espoused by alqaida alshabab etc ???
You get to live and breathe, a belly full of food and wake up next day without worrying about bombs. In any other case colonialism would be bad but for you, a Somali, it is excellent.
Except you wouldn't be able to feed yourself because a colonialist used land for cash crops. Then there were the world wars which got Somalis drafted so bombs were worried about.
Colonialism was a curse on Somalia, you only have to look to the Ogaden to see that.
I'm not saying it was good I'm saying it was better off than it is now. But I think you are one of those people that want to die on their own terms, I respect that. That's valiant.
No I meant as in we better off in those 2 decades under Siad. Mogadishu grew much more rapidly under him though he neglected other cities. I don't think most people here realise Somalia was an even bigger shithole under Italy.
You’re already starting off from a false premise. My contention isn’t that there was not exploitation under imperialism, by definition there was, what I’m saying is that we as a people regressed after it. You talk about denial of social freedoms as if we aren’t more restricted today as opposed to that era. Religious violence can easily be used as an example. Our economy is basically propped up by remittance, charity and debt so I fail to see the improvement there. As if if debt itself isn’t a tactic used under neocolonialism.
Yes it is blatantly racist to think we are inferior but it is a factual to point out that we were far less developed otherwise what opened us to be colonized in the first place? You have to call a spade a spade without getting in our feelings.And I’m too lazy to look up exact numbers for the rate of violent crime (murder, rape etc) during that period but I’m willing to bet it’s significantly less than what came after.
You speak about crime prevention but without a solid frame for a society and infrastructure that will inevitably lead back to chaos which in turn leads to violence.
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Sxb you entire argument rested upon the basis that we as people had it better during colonialism than now, i claim which i disputed. Furthermore you didn't back up your claim with any data at all to prove your case, the only thing you brought up was the current situation which you then used to justify that we needed to be colonised again. Posting bomb blast aftermath pics and comparing it to colonial pics doesn't qualify as evidence simply due to the fact that it's selective, biased and most importantly not adequate at all to prove your claims.
How did you come to establish that we regressed after colonialism ? what measure/criteria are you using to claim this fact ? educational progress, social mobility, political and economic freedom ? what exactly are you comparing to come to that conclusion of yours ? so the only factor that is of the utmost importance is violent crime ? is this how you determine colonialism was good for us ?
You're too lazy to cite any evidence to prove your case, yet expect us to simply acknowledge your argument as being credible ? who is the emotional one in this case ? sxb you're entitled to your opinions however false they're laakin do remember they're not facts
To claim that colonialism is a superior form of governance and better suited for us as a people you need to back it up with actual empirical evidence that proves it so (i highly doubt that any "positive" evidence exists that would outweigh all the established evidence which show the brutality of colonialism )
Imagine claiming that AA's had it better during slavery simply because they had low rates of crime as opposed to now, this is essentially what you and all those who're in favour for the reinstatement of colonialism are claiming.
The level of foolishness is simply outstanding yet you've the audacity to act as if you've blessed us with a profound solution to our current predicament.
Wada ku qul qul warya
AhmedSmelly
I am an offical nacas. too honest
Being colonized means a white man is going to steal our resources and giving us bare peas. Compared to now, where the rich somali cliques are taking somali resources from our country and giving nothing back. Everything they own is in offshore banks.You are right we are much better being colonized. 100%. Our GDP will quadruple compared to now.
There will be rulers based on quality not qabil.
But somalia had it a lot better pr-colonization time, where the rulers of this world were Muslims. We we were unstoppable. Everybody admired our empire in East Africa.
Now we have unfit rulers and low iq tribalist followers 68IQ is a an epidemic.
Love how you skipped of you being called out about “social freedoms and economy”, looking at Somalia the last 30 years that argument alone was nonsense.Sxb you entire argument rested upon the basis that we as people had it better during colonialism than now, i claim which i disputed. Furthermore you didn't back up your claim with any data at all to prove your case, the only thing you brought up was the current situation which you then used to justify that we needed to be colonised again. Posting bomb blast aftermath pics and comparing it to colonial pics doesn't qualify as evidence simply due to the fact that it's selective, biased and most importantly not adequate at all to prove your claims.
How did you come to establish that we regressed after colonialism ? what measure/criteria are you using to claim this fact ? educational progress, social mobility, political and economic freedom ? what exactly are you comparing to come to that conclusion of yours ? so the only factor that is of the utmost importance is violent crime ? is this how you determine colonialism was good for us ?
You're too lazy to cite any evidence to prove your case, yet expect us to simply acknowledge your argument as being credible ? who is the emotional one in this case ? sxb you're entitled to your opinions however false they're laakin do remember they're not facts
To claim that colonialism is a superior form of governance and better suited for us as a people you need to back it up with actual empirical evidence that proves it so (i highly doubt that any "positive" evidence exists that would outweigh all the established evidence which show the brutality of colonialism )
Imagine claiming that AA's had it better during slavery simply because they had low rates of crime as opposed to now, this is essentially what you and all those who're in favour for the reinstatement of colonialism are claiming.
The level of foolishness is simply outstanding yet you've the audacity to act as if you've blessed us with a profound solution to our current predicament.
Wada ku qul qul warya
But let me get this straight so you don’t weasel your way out of this. You’re literally arguing that as a colony we had a worse society than we did during and after a civil war? Clearly you don’t understand the damage of a civil war or war in general. Yes I said violence because guess what? War is violent and what comes with it? The break down of society itself whether it’s infrastructure, education, health services not to mention the rise in gender based violence. 
And that’s just war, by definition civil war has more casualties. Why? Because you’re killing you’re own people. What war has caused the most American deaths? The civil war. How is that possible when it wasn’t the longest conflict. I know it’s difficult but try to work it out.
It’s as if you’re claiming that half a million Somalis were slaughtered during colonization. And half a million is only and I literally mean was only killed just by the war. It’s not even the number one cause of death which is respiratory infection and other treatable issues.
Where should I start from and what’s the criteria? Death from combat? I can easily find numbers for that more Somalis died from civil war than colonialism. Rape? Again it’s obvious the stats were higher during the civil war but I can go for it. Death from preventable diseases? A population increase and the fact that we had better health care institutions can easily prove that.
Abaayo macan it was a post to troll you nationalists but this denial of common sense has peaked my interest. I didn’t mean to have you in your feelings like this but if you want to discuss politics with men atleast put your big girl kastumo on. Yes obviously conflict and war was far more brutal than colonization.
That’s not even addressing Siad Barre and his regime.I mean you have to feel for @AdoonkaAlle she has spirit but the issue is common sense. Post colonialism we have had a failed democracy, a dictatorship, a civil war and a war on terror. Hell we have drones strikes today. What were the Italians? Corrupt? Our corruption is ranked the 2nd most in the world behind North Korea. North Korea which is basically the worlds largest hostage situation.
And we aren’t colonized today? Tell that to the politicians whose workers get caught with bags full of money from Gulf states. Italians helped build the capitol up the Current gov has taken weeks to build 1 road after taking millions in taxes.
