Aaliyyah;946621 wrote: LOL nah you aren't going to hell for trying to pull a prank on old classmates. But you might be if you continue hugging girls who are not your immediate family. Count yourself lucky haha

^LOL, Malika is out of my league bro, some doors you never knock! Uchi, its up for sale at the tune of $8000, lmao.

25-30 is a good age to get married and enjoy life for another 5 years, generate wealth, and unforgettable experiences. Then I must dedicate it towards the children, which should be interesting.

^Broeder, upgrading the material and info in the form of mass-media will have a wider reach. :cool:

Aaliyyah;946296 wrote: Chimera, it would have been less awkward if you explained yourself . But, I guess you were too shocked to do that lol... Either way I looked psycho, and left them there frozen. I thought I was pranking old classmates that knew my sense of humour and expected giggles and hugs, but I got a synchronized scream that will never leave my mind. I'm going to hell for this.

Alpha Blondy;946286 wrote: I was like: and then:

nuune;945426 wrote: Outsourcing the project would be an ideal in places like Bangalore, costs can be kept minimum by outsourcing, and you tell them what you need/how you want/when/what etc, it would mean you will have to be there in person, most of the world's today game programmers are based in there, the know hows are there but they need guidance on what to expect from them. BTW big bro, that method is outdated, now you have prepared game-engines like Truevision3D, where you don't have to start from scratch or spend time and valuable money relocating to another country. That extra money you can use employing closer to home,

Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar;946086 wrote: Bi'oo bokis . Dah. LOL

A few months ago I stalked a group of sisters through the mall - who from behind looked familiar - and then scared the hell out of them, their screams echoed. I knew not a single one, and walked away in shock.

They were clearly targeting the Qataris. London Conference better focus on funding the Police forces. AUN to the victims.

^

First 50 min of the film kicks azz, think 'Drive' on a motorcycle.

Mindless entertainment:

The Somali Calendar: An Ancient, Accurate Timekeeping System By Said M-Shidad Hussein The Somalis use both solar and lunar calendric systems. The Lunar year, in which months correspond to the phases of the moon, is approximately 354.37 days. The months of the lunar year systematically shift with respect to the cycle of the seasons. The lunar calendar is used for religious observations as well as social, economic, and legal contracts. It is commonly used throughout Muslim world. The solar calendar is used for purposes such as weather forecasting, maritime travel, and identification of the seasons. This paper focuses exclusively with the solar calendar (Amin-tiris or Taqwiim Although unfamiliar to most of the rest of the world, the Somali solar calendar is one of the most fascinating, sophisticated and accurate calendars in the world. Its evolution probably dates from approximately 2,500 years ago, or even earlier. Although farming and herding have historically been the leading economic activities of Somalia, it is also known as a mercantile nation. Experiences and needs from these three communities, particularly the last two, have contributed to the formation of the solar calendar. The Somali solar year, which is a tropical year in fact, corresponds to the cycle of the seasons. It is based on the weekly cycle and upon the sun, and it is organized into four seasons, twelve months, and 52 weeks plus one day or 365 days. The New Year, which is characterized by a festival called ‘Dabshid’ falls on or around July 20, in the Gregorian calendar. Other periodic cycles are derived from the weekly cycle in order to create a calendrical year and to extend the timekeeping system beyond. As a result, various time units are established. This extended system is based on the number of ‘seven.’ Rules of the Somali Calendar Besides the weekly cycle, there are four other major cycles in the system: the 50-day cycle, which is seven weeks plus one day; the yearly cycle which is 7 x 50 days plus 15 days; the seven-year cycle which is 7 x 365 or 2,555 days long; and the 49-year cycle which is 7 x 7 years in length. All these time units share the number of ‘seven’ or weekly cycle. Every unit is named after its first day, which is also the last day of yearly and 50-day cycles. READ MORE

Safferz;945782 wrote: Great, so you do research and update Wikipedia articles. Origins of my initial interest! When you have groups distorting your history, it becomes a great motivator. I'm amused by the arrogance with which you assume you are the only one here who has done archival work and extensive reading on East African history, Very strange reply, I only highlighted where my posts originate from, I never said "I know more than anyone else". and you should keep in mind that this is an anonymous internet forum and you know nothing about who posts here or what they do for a living. Shaking my head. If you haven't noticed already, I'm purposely not engaging with your posts It matters not, the material still stands, anyone that's interested only has to copy any of my paraphrased sentences therein and they will find the original sources. - over nationalist to the point of historical erasures, conflated historical periodization, outright falsehoods and yes, fantastic accounts - because I neither have the time nor the energy for it. Simply saying things to come off as knowing and making your speculation definitive is not history, though I'm sure it is great material for a historical fantasy novel. What a cop out.

Are the gloves off again ya Alphy? Project "Ultimate Smackdown" will be re-instated, ii si suug,

Bump.

ElPunto;945735 wrote: ^Notwithstanding Chimera's propensity to inflate Somalis' past achievements. I have the book- catalogue of the old Garesa Museum in my possession, nothing inflated here. In-fact pre-2007 I used to underestimate Somali history in a similar manner, but boy was I wrong!

Safferz;945733 wrote: That is false, Not at all, consider this, in East Africa there were four major polities, the Ethiopians, the Swahilis, the Sudanese and the Somalis. The Ethiopians had no impact on the Swahili coast, the Somalis did. The Swahilis had no impact on the Ethiopian highlands, the Somalis did. The Sudanese had no impact on the Indian Ocean sultanates and states, the Somalis did. No Ethiopian school of thought has followers in Indonesia, the Somalis do. No medieval Sudanese kingdom imported cannons and firearms, the Somalis did. None of these groups had a trade-network as extensive as ours. If you deleted Somalis from East African history, there would be a massive change across the region, while the same cannot be said of any of the other groups. The religious difference, and the different location of entire ethnic groups alone are more than enough to back my statement that Somalis were the link that tied together an entire geographic region, and impacted the region the most. and your entire post is bordering on the fantastic. This is amusing, for your information there was a time somewhere in 2007, when I created and cleaned up all the Somali wikipedia articles from the vomit of Pan-Ethiopianists, and white-supremacists. I spend much time in Europe's biggest library i.e the British Library going through hundreds of books, and every single claim I made in my post can be backed with a source. It's really mind-boggling to encounter self-underestimation amongst Somalis, even intelligent ones, when there is so much materialistic evidence to corroborate "the so-called fantastic". It has become tradition among the interlopers commenting on my posts to create an impression that I'm out of this world because of their own personal myopia or ignorance. I didn't expect such lazy debating skills from you. If there is something you believe is false, then point it out more clearly and you'll get a proper source. Somalis were certainly not a powerless people and maintained many important states as well as were active players in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea trade networks, but exaggeration is not helpful. There is absolutely no exaggeration to my statements, unless you want to change historical sources on the paramount status of Somali cities such as Mogadishu and Zeila. Reminds me of the "we were all kings and queens of Egypt" stuff you hear from black nationalists in the US. Rubbish, I'm not claiming someone's else history, this is Somali history. Furthermore the key port cities during the height of these trades were under the administration of the Ottomans, Zanzibaris, Omanis, etc. Why am I not surprised, let's break down the Golden Ages of each of these Somali cities: Mogadishu - 11th - 16th centuries. No Omani, Zanzibari or Ottoman controlled it. It were the Mogadishans, Ajuurans and Gobroons that held sway over it. Even in the 19th century during the so-called Zanzibar suzerainty: However, Zanzibari involvement remained nominal, and the Zanzibari ruler had to pay tribute to the powerful sultan of the Geledi, whose lands lay to the west of the city (Alpers). Thus, Mogadishu's affairs remained in local hands. -- Encyclopedia of African History - Volume 2 - Page 990 Zeila - 13th - 16th centuries. No Omani, Zanzibari or Ottoman controlled it. It were the Kingdoms of Ifat and Adal that ruled this important city, through which most of the trade in the Northern and western Horn passed through. Only after the collapse of Adal did the local rulers find logic in paying tribute to the Ottomans for protection, while maintaining full control of the city. No Ottoman administrator or army set foot there during that time, the decade of Khedive occupation is hardly a dent on the centuries of independence. The Portuguese also brutally sacked Somali towns, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I've read diary entries from the Portuguese during this period talking about how they were cutting off limbs to take women's jewelry. I don't have time to go through your post line by line but there are many issues here. And Somalis brutally sacked Portuguese colonies in East Africa, what's your point. This is war. The fact remains, the Portuguese never held those cities, and in Mogadishu they were repulsed or scared away at several occasions. You're missing the point, and I've explained earlier in the thread the historical ambiguity of the terms Ethiopian/Habashi. Your words in quotes are Wadani's, not mine. I suggest you read more about the nomenclature "Ethiopia" for the historical context I'm referring to, which since antiquity (and most notably in the Bible) has signified much more than what has ever been the boundaries of an Ethiopian state. The nomenclature Ethiopia once covered all of Africa, once referenced only Sudan, today it denotes our neighbour. The region of Greater Somalia however for the majority of its history was known by distinct names, a single Arab geographer sitting in the libraries of Baghdad cannot change that with a single reference to region as "Al-Habash", more called it Bilad Al-Barbar. Interesting definition for slavery, by your definition most slave trades including the Trans-Atlantic slave trade were not really "slavery" either since wars between West African states accounted for many of the captives. Uncomparable, these West African states exported hundreds of thousands of slaves and this was their main source of income. In the East African context there was no power that hunted and defeated Somalis enmasse and then sold their women and children to foreign lands. What we do have is historical episodes in the form of Somali-Abyssinian wars where they would practice such measures, but never on a massive scale, and all historical evidence points to the Somalis doing it at a greater frequency on other groups than vice-versa. Slavery in Somalia is hardly a well researched topic, I'm quite familiar with the literature and as I said, there is very little out there and much work left to be done. Most slaves were Oromo and Bantu-speaking peoples from the interior, that we know, but it is absurd to believe that some Somalis were not caught up in the trade as well, which is all I've said in this thread after Wadani's knee-jerk response to one image from Iran (the annotations are not mine, by the way, but taken from the exhibit's curators). It is too bad you are unable to reconcile this with your mythology. Wow, while I keep providing sources, all you have is an exhibit in Iran, whose curators might not even know the difference between Swahili or Somali, but I should take them as an authority on the history of the region, when there are far more reliable sources and institutions available?

Good.

Baashi;945712 wrote: 100% agreed. Local ownership will be gone pretty soon. Back to square one, luckily the Federal government has more powerful friends than a regional bloc of poor countries, whose entire presence in Somalia is bankrolled by external sources, which are being swayed to align themselves with the Federal government.

Alpha Blondy;945642 wrote: this is the projections made so far...... what you do you guys think? Set up a paypal address for this library (i.e maelibrary@hotmail.com), and I'll contribute anonymously, very inspiring project Alphy.

SomaliPhilosopher;945709 wrote: Chimera do you take ritalin? Does your mother?

Safferz;945670 wrote: Okie. Let's suspend all logic and knowledge of political economies of slaving/slavery and its historiography to say Somalis were the one ethnic group untouched by the Red Sea and Indian Ocean slave trades. Somalis are 'the one ethnic group' that had the most wide-spread power projection in East Africa, be it military, cultural, or economic. Their impact can be traced from Egypt to China, in the form of states, trade, cultural diffusion, or individuals. Somalis controlled the richest cities in East Africa, the most battle-hardened armies came from the Somali peninsula, it was in that region that a European power was defeated for the first time. They had the most expansive maritime-network, and possessed the necessary ship-building technology and port cities to sustain such a culture. The economy of slavery in that region during the Middle Ages was the domain of Somali polities such as the Kingdom of Adal, a single leader from that superstructure enslaved 20 thousand Abyssinians every Lent, most of whom were exported to Arabia and India, and much more were captured and sold during the Conquest of Abyssinia. You had Hydraulic empires like the Ajuuran that maintained slave-armies, and controlled major port cities from where slaves south of Somalia were brought to, and then sold. We "cannot confidently assume" those referred to as "Abyssinians" in history to be misrepresented Somali captives, because there is no evidence of this. No major foreign empire ever held sway over the Somali peninsula, nor is there any historical corroboration for a trade in "Somalis". This is an ethnic group whose phenotype, language and culture was distinct enough for the likes of Ibn Battuta during his visit to the Sultanate of Mogadishu, to differentiate them from both the Arabs and other African groups, including the Abyssinians. Only in a world where Somalis were mere guests in the famous paramount cities situated on their land can you postulate the idea that they were sold like chattel. However, we know from history, (one not polluted by the underestimation of colonialist scholars or the revisionism by clan scholars), that Somalis were very much in the driving seat of any economic venture taking place in their lands, be it as benefactors or originators, this includes a disgusting trade such as slavery. They had the necessary infrastructure in the form of sprawling white-washed cities, and well-situated ports to attract trade from Madagascar to Venice. They had the necessary military power to subdue potential lethal foes in the region. The Portuguese were the foreign polity with the most power-projection in Africa, and still they were defeated on several occasions by Somali soldiers, including in their own colonies that are today part of Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique. Any attempt at attacking or holding a Somali city on their part was repulsed. Another arch-enemy like the Abyssinians were subdued to such an extent that for the next four hundred years, they never left their borders to plague any of the Muslim cities in the Horn. The Indian Ocean and Red Sea trade was our ancestors specialty, they dominated, be it through the gold-trade, the incense-trade, the textile-trade, the exotic-wildlife trade, or the slave-trade. Its why we have more than forty historic inland/port cities in the country, a legacy and mark of a renowned seafaring people. The old Museum was filled with navigational equipment, ship models, anchors, and other items from the past, which is evidence of a sophisticated and well-developed maritime culture. Slavery in Somalia is a well researched topic, moreso than many other important ones. Scholars such as Catherine Besteman's extensive research on the issue comes to mind. The slave-trade in Somali port-cities reached a peak in the 18th/19th century, and the biggest importers from the markets of Zanzibar were the Somali plantation owners in the South, during the Gobroon Dynasty. Mind you, to be clear; were some Somalis in history ever captured and then sold? Sure, but they would be termed prisoners of war, and this does not equal "slavery", which is the enslavement/export of a large amount of people to perform servitude either domestically or abroad. The same way some Japanese in history were once captured and then sold, but we cannot then claim the "Japanese were enslaved", which gives the impression of widespread slavery. There are plenty of historic Somali figures/groups that made an impact around the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea that we can be proud of, we don't need the characters in your articles to be refashioned into Somalis, because there is absolutely no evidence to back this. Cheers.