The African Diaspora in the Indian Ocean World

[Chimera]

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.

[SomaliPhilosopher]

Can we claim Othello of Somali descent ?

[SomaliPhilosopher]

Chimera do you take ritalin?

[Chimera]

SomaliPhilosopher;945709 wrote:

Chimera do you take ritalin?

Does your mother?

[SomaliPhilosopher]

*sigh* I was merely pointing out my shock of the length of your post... I will stop joking with you; you are obviously oversensative. My mother kulaha tis tis

[Chimera]

Good.

[Wadani]

Chimera;945702 wrote:

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.

+1000

[Safferz]

Chimera;945702 wrote:

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.

That is false, and your entire post is bordering on the fantastic. 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. Reminds me of the "we were all kings and queens of Egypt" stuff you hear from black nationalists in the US. Furthermore the key port cities during the height of these trades were under the administration of the Ottomans, Zanzibaris, Omanis, etc. 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.

 

Chimera;945702 wrote:

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.

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.

 

Chimera;945702 wrote:

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.

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. 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.

[ElPunto]

^Notwithstanding Chimera's propensity to inflate Somalis' past achievements - mass scale slavery of Somalis isn't something I've seen in any literature. I do believe that some Somalis may have been enslaved but a history of slave master predations and victimization would be necessary to conclude that Somalis as a people were enslaved.

 

Good thread - it's a really interesting history.

[Safferz]

Where did I say anything about the large scale enslavement of Somalis? That was the strawman Chimera invented in his attempt to make a point.

[ElPunto]

^You didn't but when one says a 'people' have been enslaved - that image comes to mind.

[Safferz]

ElPunto;945737 wrote:

^You didn't but when one says a 'people' have been enslaved - that image comes to mind.

I didn't say anything like "the Somali people were enslaved" either, I've only repeated several times now that like every other ethnic group in the region, Somalis too we were touched by the slave trade(s) and it is absurd to dismiss the image caption from the Iran portrait because you refuse to accept the fact some ethnically Somali slaves ended up in the Middle East. There is way too much butthurt in this thread.

 

PS - though we are discussing "ethnic Somalis" here, it's also important to bear in mind that there are many people in southern Somalia today who are descendants of enslaved peoples and now identify as Somali, and their historical experience certainly qualifies as large scale slavery.

[ElPunto]

^I'm just giving you my impression. Relax. Are you sure the butthurt doesn't include you?

[Safferz]

ElPunto;945744 wrote:

^I'm just giving you my impression. Relax. Are you sure the butthurt doesn't include you?

Irritated is the better term lol. I don't know why I get into debates over history on SOL, it's a different world here.

[Alpha Blondy]

ElPunto;945744 wrote:

^I'm just giving you my impression. Relax. Are you sure the butthurt doesn't include you?

iska daa our resident SUPER WOMAN........she's intellectually flawless........ and makes an excellent breakfast while spearheading 'third-world' issues.......EXCELLENT! all in a days work for Saffz but for the rest of 'us' mere morals, we live in the hope of being graced with her one-womanism conscious efforts.

 

Saffz....this hees is for you...... ee sida uula soco.......

 

 

 

Alpha B.