The other somali diaspora!

[Che -Guevara]

The recent history have seen somalis exiting their country creating Big Qurbo living outside somali lands of the horn. Though we are nomads , i thought that no significan number of somalis ever left somalia to settle outside the horn. I held that view till i heard that people claiming to be of somali descent that live in other parts of Africa. These communities claim that they are somali descendents who have migrated from Somalia centuries ago. One of these communities happens to be in Chad , these people claim to be Garre ( one of the oldest ethnic somali tribes). To prove their ethnic background, they have recited the names of their forefathers( Abtirsi). When these names were matched with todays somali Garre tribes. It all checked right.

There are also very similiar todays somalis. Other communities are found in Tanzania and as far south Burundi and Rwundi. These people too assert that they are of somali descent. Some of these people still have the distinct somali features though others have assimilated in the local culture. My friend of mine show me a picture of Burundi President, This guy looks your avarge somali male( i can't say however if he is somali of descent). Other communities claiming are found as far as west africa. My friend mine from Ghana says they are ethnics gtom ghana and senegal that have somali features.

Iam wondering if anyone of nomads know anything about these communities?

[Gabbal]

While I should say I have never heard of this before and cannot claim it false or true, I would just say there are millions of Africans who have Somali feature. To be speaking accurately there is not such a thing called Somali features, but we are part of the Cushitic chain who all share similar features.

 

The Habasha (although they don't speak cushitic languages) Oromos, Afars, beni Amer, the beja, Rendille, and other Cushites, all can be mistaken for Somalis, as can the Hausa of Nigeria, the Tutsi of Rwanda/ Uganda/Burundi and other Nilo-Hamites.

 

Even us Somalis don't look one way. Some of us look mixed, some look Arab/Persian/Hindi, some look Asian, some look European, while Some have plain average Africoid/Negroid features.

 

Whoah, I have hijacked this thread didn't I? Well I know nothing of these communities to answer your question Che. Are you a socialist by any chance?

[Che -Guevara]

HornAfrique....I do know that there are lot people with our physical features , norther berbers, eastern cushites, pharaonic egyptains, etc, but the people iam talking about trace their ancestry to somalis and cliamed migrated from somalia. It is not their physical features that they tried to offer as evidence linking to somalis, but also they mentioned oral history , tribal lineiage, this is specially in the case of chad people who traced their ancestors back to somali garre using their oral history, their liniaeges and language. They did some credible evidence. I think their claim has to be examined. One must consider the very fact that they claim to be of somali decent , not claiming of any other chustic ethnic.

I understand where yu are coming though, People of the cushitic are more or less same physically, linguistically and culturally.

[mojam]

I personally know many people from Rwanda & Burundi. Most of them look like a typical Somali. When I see most of them for the first time, the first question I ask them is whether they are from Somalia, only to find out that they are from Rwanda. Some of them have told me that their ancestors are from Somalia and Ethiopia.

[Gabbal]

Those are the Tutsis, Mojam.

 

Che, I guess this is the first time I am hearing about this. Do you have a website I can go to get more info?

[Miskin]

i agree with the original poster that there are communities that claim to be of somali origin in other parts of Africa.

 

i lived in Rwanda for quite a while in the early 90s and i saw this (Tribe)the TUTSI's. but what is quiete amazing is that this community doesn't only have our distinctive feature but believe that they are of somali origin, not only that but even the other main tribe in that country namely the HUTUS olso refer to them as being of a somali origin.

 

miskin-macruf2

[Gabbal]

Miskin

 

Believe the Hutus are a Negroid tribe.

[Ariadne]

hutus are a negroid tribe.

I hate that word! not only is it not politically inocrrect, but white supremicists in the 1950s used this as to undermine any african acheivement. And made the africans that did acheive something belong to a "dark caucasians." Meaning they called africans either negroid or hamite (hamites are the supposed dark caucasians) while negroids are the "uncivilized canniballistic Africans" (which all black Africans fell under).

 

The modern way of refering to Africans with African features is Indigenious. (Because they did not inter-marry with supposed invaders or whoever was passing through). So can we refrain from using negroid! for the sake of our Continet.

[Che -Guevara]

HornAfrique.....I wish i knew a site to talks about this in detail. I didn't see any site yet.

N Plz...we can refer the hutus as bantus, and lets drop da N word.

Mojam and Miskin......I think the tutsis are cushitic tribe who originated from the horn. They are considered as immigrants , the hutus see themselves as the locals. Thats in the 94 genocide, hutus and congo leaders used the race card urging people to kill the non-bantu tutsi immigrants. Though one must keep in mind other factors played an important role in the genocide, since hutus were under represented in goverment and the colonial legacy also played an important. Germans and Belgians use to favor tutsis over hutus. Like S.O.S said tutsis were considered black caucasians.

S.O.S....So we be clear, we are not putting down bantus and denying them their accomplishments and civilazations. I gotta to disagree few things yu said though. Bantus are not the indeginous people of the most of Sub-sahara Africa(Aka black africa), They have originated from west Africa and replaced indeginous people in many parts of Africa in series of migrations. Pygmies are indeginious people to the congo. Bushmen of the Kalahari are indeginious to southern Africa. Bantus have also replaced many indeginious in east africa. The bantus were technologically advanced than local people who get assimilated or cease to exist. The bantus have reached as far south as the great zimbabwe where one of the great bantu civilazations was born. To say bantus are indeginious to all of sub-sahran africa is misleading. This is not a whiteman's account of african history, it is the truth. It is also misleading to say the so called hamites aka somali, ethios, etc are result of black and the invading armies. we are not the product of anything. Sure ,we have inter-married with other people but who didn't. Could anyone in this world possibly say iam pure anything. The cushtic people, their cultures , and languages are unique and have been so for all ages. They are not the product of bi-racial inter-mingling. The idea that cushtic people are white/semitic origin doesn't hold any ground anymore. I do agree with you that was something used by europeans to claim any civilzations in Africa for themselves. They wanted take a credit for everything from Egypt, Aksum ,punt, to nubia and great zimbabwe. But the truth is africans built these civilazations. N These africans were bantus and cushitic people. we should acknowledge the diversity of within africa itself instead of calling our selves one big happy black family.

[Ariadne]

Like S.O.S said tutsis were considered black caucasians.

I never said that. I said dark caucasians according to those times were black people (who weren't really black just very tan)

 

S.O.S....So we be clear, we are not putting down bantus and denying them their accomplishments and civilazations.

I never said anyone here was putting down bantus or their accomplishments. I simpliy said lets refrain from using Negroid.

 

I gotta to disagree few things yu said though. Bantus are not the indeginous people of the most of Sub-sahara Africa(Aka black africa),

When people say the Natives around the world (Brazil, Native North Ameircans, South Pacific and Africans) they refer to them as Indigenous meaning Original Inhabitants. In southern Sudan they are Bantu and yet they are still considered Indigenous.

 

They have originated from west Africa and replaced indeginous people in many parts of Africa in series of migrations. Pygmies are indeginious people to the congo. Bushmen of the Kalahari are indeginious to southern Africa. Bantus have also replaced many indeginious in east africa. The bantus were technologically advanced than local people who get assimilated or cease to exist. The bantus have reached as far south as the great zimbabwe where one of the great bantu civilazations was born. To say bantus are indeginious to all of sub-sahran africa is misleading.

I never did say Bantus were Indigenous to all Africa now did I?.

 

This is not a whiteman's account of african history, it is the truth

And where did I say it wasn't?

 

 

It is also misleading to say the so called hamites aka somali, ethios, etc are result of black and the invading armies. we are not the product of anything. Sure ,we have inter-married with other people but who didn't. Could anyone in this world possibly say iam pure anything. The cushtic people, their cultures , and languages are unique and have been so for all ages. They are not the product of bi-racial inter-mingling.

First, you say sure they have intermarried with others. Then you say they are not the product of bi-racial inter-mingling. Make up your mind.

 

 

The idea that cushtic people are white/semitic origin doesn't hold any ground anymore. I do agree with you that was something used by europeans to claim any civilzations in Africa for themselves. They wanted take a credit for everything from Egypt, Aksum ,punt, to nubia and great zimbabwe. But the truth is africans built these civilazations.

Finally! something we can both agree on.

 

 

N These africans were bantus and cushitic people. we should acknowledge the diversity of within africa itself

Yes, diversity is very good. And diversity means differences. But are we really that different?

as humans? really?

 

instead of calling our selves one big happy black family.

and whats wrong with that?

[Gediid]

Ma waxaad leedihiin imika wixii noo eegba waa Somali.Guys I would like to believe that but Somalis are the people who occupy the areas that are clearily defined Somali territory,anyone else who looks like a Somali,walks like a Somali or even sneezes like a Somali isn't Somali if they are from outside that territory.

[Che -Guevara]

Originally posted by Cushitic-C

quote:

---

I never said that. I said dark caucasians according to those times were black people (who weren't really black just very tan)

what is Black?

 

 

I simpliy said lets refrain from using Negroid.

Cool!

 

 

 

quote:

---

When people say the Natives around the world (Brazil, Native North Ameircans, South Pacific and Africans) they refer to them as Indigenous meaning Original Inhabitants. In southern Sudan they are Bantu and yet they are still considered Indigenous.

I was merely pointing out the word "Africa" is not synmous with Bantu. They are one section africa's many indeginous diversi groups!

 

I never did say Bantus were Indigenous to all Africa now did I?.

My bad!

 

And where did I say it wasn't?

Yu didn't!

 

 

First, you say sure they have intermarried with others. Then you say they are not the product of bi-racial inter-mingling. Make up your mind.

Just pointing out, no one is pure anything. There is no pure white, black , yellow or red man and certainly there is such no thing as pure bantu. Many purist west africans would love to argue that cushitic people are all bi-racials and the bantus are the "pure" africans

 

 

Finally! something we can both agree on.

I think yu also will agree cushtic people are indeginious africans much like bantus from west africa!

 

Yes, diversity is very good. And diversity means differences. But are we really that different?

as humans? really?

No we are not, but by our nature we categorize each other into groups. Even if there was a world occupied by a homogenious society, there will still be categarization of people.

 

and whats wrong with that? [/QB]

Nothing is wrong with that except it is realistically talking a stupid concept to pursue. There is no one racially, politically and culturally homeginious Africa.we are not one big happy black family and will never be one,and yes we never were to begin with

[Che -Guevara]

Gediid...No one is saying anyone that looks like somali is a somali!....we just discussing about communities living in other parts of africa that claim to have migrated from somalia centuries.

[Ariadne]

quote:

quote:

---

I never said that. I said dark caucasians according to those times were black people (who weren't really black just very tan)

what is Black?

quote:

---

I was being sarcastic in saying they weren't black just really tan (to make them the melanin matter less to the society at that time).

 

[QB]When people say the Natives around the world (Brazil, Native North Ameircans, South Pacific and Africans) they refer to them as Indigenous meaning Original Inhabitants. In southern Sudan they are Bantu and yet they are still considered Indigenous.

[QB]

I was merely pointing out the word "Africa" is not synmous with Bantu. They are one section africa's many indeginous diversi groups!

But, I never said Africa was synounomous with Bantu. So, you could have beeen pointing it out to the wrong person.

 

 

[QB]

Just pointing out, no one is pure anything. There is no pure white, black , yellow or red man and certainly there is such no thing as pure bantu. Many purist west africans would love to argue that cushitic people are all bi-racials and the bantus are the "pure" africans

I know there is no such thing as pure anything.

You know this too. But, what you said was everyone inter-married. Then you said that they are not the product of inter-mingling.

 

 

Finally! something we can both agree on.

I think yu also will agree cushtic people are indeginious africans much like bantus from west africa!

Agreed, most Sub-saharan Africans are Indigenous.

 

Yes, diversity is very good. And diversity means differences. But are we really that different?

as humans? really?

No we are not, but by our nature we categorize each other into groups. Even if there was a world occupied by a homogenious society, there will still be categarization of people.

Darned human nature! always looking for differences.

 

and whats wrong with that?

 

Nothing is wrong with that except it is realistically talking a stupid concept to pursue.

There is no one racially, politically and culturally homeginious Africa.we are not one big happy black family and will never be one,and yes we never were to begin with

There is no homogenousness anywhere in this world. Sure there are similarities here and there, but nothing is ever exactly the same. This applies to all the continets, not just Africa.

[J.Lee]

fighting over nothing!