How nation-states are formed.

[Haatu]

The origin of the ethnic Iranian peoples/Persian peoples are traced to the Ancient Iranian peoples, who were part of the ancient Indo-Iranians and themselves part of the greater Indo-European linguistic family. The Ancient Iranian peoples emerged in parts of the Iranian plateau circa 1000 BCE. Important Iranic tribes such as Old Persians, Medes, Parthians, Bactrians, Scythians, and the Avesta people used the name Arya (Iranian), which was a collective definition, denoting peoples who were aware of belonging to a generally common ethnic stock, speaking very closely related languages, and mainly sharing a religious tradition that centered on the worship of Ahura Mazda.

At the same time, the Old Persians were part of the wider Ariya (Iranian nation); Darius and Xerxes boast of belonging to a stock which they call “Iranian”: they proclaim themselves "Iranian" and "of Iranian stock," ariya and ariya čiça respectively, in inscriptions in which the Iranian countries come first in a list that is arranged in a new hierarchical and ethno-geographical order. Until the Parthian era, Iranian identity had an ethnic, linguistic, and religious value, however it did not yet have a political import

.

During Sassanian Iran, a national culture, fully aware of being "Iranian" took shape and was partially motivated by the restoration and the revival of the wisdom of the “sages of old,” dānāgān pēšēnīgān. Other aspects of this national culture included the glorification of a great heroic past and an archaizing spirit. Throughout the period, the pre-Islamic Iranian identity reached its height in every aspect: political, religious, cultural and even linguistic. In terms of linguistic, Middle Persian, which is the immediate ancestor of Modern Persian and variety of other Iranian dialects, became the official language of the empire and was greatly diffused amongst Iranians.

The intermingling of Persians, Medes, Parthians, Bactrians and indigenous people of Iran, including the Elamites gained more ground and a homogeneous Iranian identity was created to the extent that all were just called Iranians/Persians irrespective of clannish affiliations and regional linguistic or dialectical alterities

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_people

 

And today we have the nation-state of Iran. It's my opinion that Somalis are at the second quote, we're all proud Somalis, but politically this has no meaning to us I'm afraid I won't witness a true Somali nation-state in my lifetime.

[Safferz]

On iPad so I can't post excerpts, but check out Benedict Anderson's book "Imagined Communities," also Ernest Gellner and Eric Hobsbawm. Nation-states have architects, and national identities must be produced. I don't believe Somalis are incapable of this, we have already had a nationalist movement for independence in which Somali identity became the primary tool for political mobilization. Right now it's a question of restoring people's faith in the principles of state and citizen over clan as the trusted political unit.

[Chimera]

Somalis are at the last quote. A political Somali ethnic identity was achieved, it simply was not sustained, its comparable to the achievement of a German political identity, but which due to war, and geopolitics suffered a period of serious regression in the form of East and West Germany, and in the form of new states such as Austria, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

 

Another example would be Korea, whose political identity is older than most countries in Europe, yet geopolitics divided this identity into two states.

[SomaliPhilosopher]

The era of African nationalism has died in the 80s. No longer do our leaders have such grand ambitions in solidifying a national identity. Today we are left with bland and fatigued leaders which sits very well with our 'allies'

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

Somalis lack state mechanism the state is an alien concept for Somalis, the Somalis clearly still do not understand what a government does, most of the time the state is viewed as something that stands in the way. But some times the leading tribes use the state to screw the opponent tribes.Somalis as people are a nation but not in the political context, but they haven't organized them them selves as a nation Yet. The prominent Independent fighters in the 1940s constructed the Somali national identity that every one who speaks the Somali language is by default a Somali and is part and parcel of the larger Somali political national goals,to unite the Somali race under one state one super state. From Djibouti to Kenya's north eastern province, from Kenyas north eastern province to the awash river. But for Somalis being a Somali is not just enough, because we have never developed a nation state for Somalis , it was an objective. But it was never really part of political past and history. Unlike iranians who had a long past of Empires like the seleucid Empire and the pathian Empire and the sassanid Empire. Somalis have no history like that of the Iranians/Persians.

[Chimera]

You're confusing a political identity, with a state-apparatus. The Somali political identity exists, but for two decades suffered a black hole situation with the absence of a strong backer in the form of a state. Secondly, the Seleucid Empire was a Greek ruled state, and the Parthians were a Hellenic influenced dynasty, far from what one would consider authentic Iranian or Persian, you should have used the Sassanids or the Achaemenids, In either case, few countries on earth have a history like that of the Persians, or the Chinese, in-fact the vast majority of Europe doesn't, yet this doesn't discredit the newly created nation-state identities found there.

 

Iran btw is not a nation-state, unless Ethiopia is one too.

[Haatu]

Chimera, I only used it as an example. I really have no clue what type of country Iran is.

 

Xaaji, that was my point. All notion-states go through this phase which we're going through. Read the second and third quotes again. We just have the misfortune of being hundreds of years behind.

 

Safferz, thanks will check it out.

[Chimera]

^

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

The Iranians went through many dimensions and how their national political identity was shaped all of those previous Empires added something of value to their national political construct.I use the term iranian demyon because that is what is they are called now. The medes and the Persians played a significant role int he demise of the Assyrian Empire that subjugated them so they collaborated in the downfall of the Assyrian Empire. And after the fall of the Assyrian Empire the southern Persians introduced the farsi language as they intermixed with the medes and other tribes such as Manneans and Elamites. But you are right the sassanid Empire was the one that shaped the Iranian identity close to what it exist today. The Chinese are a bit complicated but still Somalis are closer to the germanic tribes.

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

Haatu;955173 wrote:

Chimera, I only used it as an example. I really have no clue what type of country Iran is.

 

Xaaji, that was my point. All notion-states go through this phase which we're going through. Read the second and third quotes again. We just have the misfortune of being hundreds of years behind.

 

Safferz, thanks will check it out.

You are right the Iranians went through all of that but they are united as people and they all have different origins ancestries but all of them added something of value to the Iranian political identity. The share the same history and a big portion of iran speak the same language. For an iranian if you ask him what does it mean to be an Iranian he can tell you in chapters. And what kind of civilization they had. But ask a Somali what does Somali mean to you ?

[Chimera]

Modern Iran is primarily the fruit of the Safavids and the Qajarites, the Sassanid political identity came to an end with the conquest of Persia by the First Muslims. If the Safavids or the Qajarites, and the pseudo-dynasty of the Pahlavis had failed in consolidating their fluctuating state, there wouldn't be a Iran to speak of, in-fact prior to the 1930s, there wasn't one on the international map. They are lucky that the Soviets and the British didn't divide them permanently during WW II, or all that history of empires would have amounted to little in changing this situation, as can be seen from the Korean experience.

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

Conquests of Persia by the Muslims did them very well it gave them a new religion also because the founders of that Empire Safavids claimed to be Sayids descendants of Prophet Muhammad. It was that Empire that shaped the modern Iran. But i doubt that they could have been divided like the Kurds with no country no the Iranians they shaped their future like no other they might not be as homogenous as Somalis but they sure are a nation.Somalis have no shared history like the Iranians although Somalis are very similar in all aspects, if you ask a Somali in Ethiopia what does being Somali mean to you you will get a different answer than the Somali in Djibouti or in Somaliland or Kenya's north eastern Province. The Iranian people are very multicultural and all of those cultures were incorporated into the Iranian identity , their different past became their current strength.

[Chimera]

You're ignoring the disastrous political events of the last twenty years. If this was the early 20th century, or the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and even 80s, you would get similar answers with regards to a Somali political identity, and what it entails. Somalis do have a shared history, including a political one.

 

Mogadishu and Zeila maintained economic relations and provided political support towards one another in their struggle against the Abyssinians or the Portuguese. All of the major clans participated in the Conquest of Abyssinia. The origins of the major medieval power in the region, the Ajuuran Empire is traced to the North of Somalia in Berbera. Northern Islamic movements had followers in the South, and vice versa. The Dervish State had followers and hubs of power in all of Greater Somalia, in the form of settlements, ports, fortresses and alliances.

 

The Somali Youth League had members all over the peninsula, and the Somali Republic opened its schools, universities and cities for every Somali citizen in East Africa, and fought for their rights. This is more shared history than the Belgians have, this more shared history than the vast majority of countries in Africa have.

 

If I were to ask a Balochi in Iran about his people's history it will be very different from that of his subjugators the Persians. If I asked an Kurd in Iran about his people's history it will be very different from that of his subjugators, the Persians. If I asked an Arab in Iran about his people's history it will be very different from that of his subjugators, the Persians.

 

There is no argument to be made here that can discredit the Somali political identity in favour of the Iranian one. The former is based on a actual language, on actual ethnic group, an actual culture, but could not consolidate these common features due to geopolitics. The latter is not based on any language, on any ethnic group, or any specific culture, but had the fortune to receive the political space to consolidate its country and received support in the process.

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

You are really comparing apples to oranges the Adal Empire was not entirely a Somali Empire it was an Islamic Empire with different ethnic groups including Aderi afar Arabs Shewans and Somalis they overall leaders were Somali/Arabs. But even walashma and adal although it kept relations with other Islamic Empires in the south it didn't share much of a history with the rest of the Somalis. Had Adal Empire won the war they would have expanded into much of the center of Ethiopia. And the Somali political identity would have been totally different than what is today. The Somali language would have been much different that what they speak today.Yes the dervish movement operated all over the Somali peninsula, but the problem here is timing the time the dervish movement was a political Islamic up rise.The dervish movement existed for only 21 years. It shows that Somalis can unite when there are external forces. But they fall back when they are left alone.So the dervish era was a short period of time of the history when compared to the overall Somali history.

 

You are right about the SYL but even their struggle was flawed because their struggle was not based on a country nation like any other country in Africa but more on ethno nationalism to unite the Somalis in the horn under one nation, something that never existed in the first place. Chimera Somali political identity would have been much better if Somalis expanded into other peoples ethnicities territories and ruled over them like Afars oromos Habeshas and nilotic groups. If Somalis were ruling other groups. It would have been much better.

[Chimera]

Xaaji Xunjuf;955219 wrote:

You are really comparing apples to oranges the Adal Empire was not entirely a Somali Empire it was an Islamic Empire with different ethnic groups including Aderi afar Arabs Shewans and Somalis

You are really comparing apples to oranges the Sassanid Empire was not entirely a Persian Empire it was an Zoroastrian Empire with different ethnic groups including Assyrians, Egyptians, Himyarites and Persians.

 

they overall leaders were Somali/Arabs.

Arab contribution was mainly scholars, and traders.

 

But even walashma and adal although it kept relations with other Islamic Empires in the south it didn't share much of a history with the rest of the Somalis.

 

The Barkhadle Alliance tied the Mogadishu ruled South with the Zeila ruled North.

 

Had Adal Empire won the war they would have expanded into much of the center of Ethiopia.

Adal didn't have to expand into the South, because that area ruled by a different dynasty was already allied to it. In such a scenario, a simple wedding between a Prince of Zeila and a Princess of Mogadishu could have tied together the north and the south, permanently.

 

To be honest, our literary history has been given abysmal attention, and such alliances of convenience most likely did happen.

 

And the Somali political identity would have been totally different than what is today.

I disagree, I think it would have been even stronger, similar to the Turks.

 

The Somali language would have been much different that what they speak today.

I disagree again, the Somali people expanded through much of East Africa and turned other ethnic groups into Somalis, whom adopted the dominant language, the same would have happened in this case.

 

Yes the dervish movement operated all over the Somali peninsula, but the problem here is timing the time the dervish movement was a political Islamic up rise.

Italy and Germany were given birth to only two decades before the Dervish, it was the perfect time for the establishment of a strong independent Somali state.

 

iThe dervish movement existed for only 21 years.

It outlasted the scramble for Africa and WW I.

 

It shows that Somalis can unite when there are external forces. But they fall back when they are left alone.

The Dervish State wasn't left alone, it was destroyed with a new technological weapon: airplanes

 

So the dervish era was a short period of time of the history when compared to the overall Somali history.

Shared history is shared history.

 

You are right about the SYL but even their struggle was flawed because their struggle was not based on a country nation like any other country in Africa but more on ethno nationalism to unite the Somalis in the horn under one nation,

Their struggle was perfect, and admirable, however the odds against them was too big.

 

something that never existed in the first place.

Most countries in the world never existed in the first place, there comes a process before it actually exists in the first place.

 

Chimera Somali political identity would have been much better if Somalis expanded into other peoples ethnicities territories and ruled over them like Afars oromos Habeshas and nilotic groups. If Somalis were ruling other groups. It would have been much better.

LOL, that's actually what Somalis did, however in a ironic twist of fate the Somalization campaign of our ancestors was far more successful than the latter day colonialism practiced by the Europeans, because we actually turned other groups into Somalis, as we expanded further and further in the region.

 

What would have been better is if we emulated the shaky European nation-states by importing a German prince or princess and made them monarchs of our country. The Kingdom of Somalia ruled by an Afar monarchy would bypass the clan-system, and prevent the zero-sum politics so common when a specific individual from clan A or clan B becomes President or PM. At the same time the Afars in their own homeland are not a threat, economically or politically, while they are phenotypically the closest in looks to Somalis in Africa, so it would be easier to create a bond between them and their Somali citizens.