Kacaan distortion of Somali history exposed: who were the Dervishes??

[LANDER]

nuune;969332 wrote:

I will take GARANUUG series when he stops mentioning British names in his posts, it seems he can't reply a post without the use of a British reference, I would have even accepted if he had used a Portuguese for once, but he can't avoid the fixation of the British, I am glad he is the only one who overuses it, most of our ethnic afro hashimitte landers are a sensible people despite this lunatic oo sidii haramcadka dhutinayo, waa horuu rahu hunqaaco ka kici lahaa hadeysan aheyn shinbirka agtiisa ka ciyo ad iyo goor markuu maago inuu aburka kiciyo si xaraara leh ayuu u soo afuufaa oon ganuunac ku jirin!

Abti this young man states british sources because the british documented these events, they were on the ground. Portuguese maxa sheekada so galiyay would it make a difference what colonial power meesha jogay. The point at hand wa niman somaliyeed o been iyo balayo aburtay adna ingiriiskad sheekada ku wecinaysa.

[Che -Guevara]

We shall contribute when there's something worthy discussing, till then not a lot effort needs to be wasted on grown men with chip on their shoulders. This is not tol khat session.

[nuune]

Lander, waxa aanba ka soo hrojeedo illaa iyo waagii aan aniga iyo adiga meejan SOL isla joogney waa Britishka, ma Britishkii cadowga ahaa ayaan sourcigooda aaminayaa oon dhihi karaaba they documented these events pretty well, kaligoodna on the ground ma joogin, what makes them neutral anyway, ayagaaba cadaw ahaa at the time regardless the partnership they had with some tribes at the time, halkaa dib ugu noqo, Abti. The Portugeese one was metaphorical, hence I do hate the Portuqiis more since intey Xamar yimaadeen, quruxdeeda ka yaabeen, even better built than Lisbon at the time, ayey intey ku xanaqeen bey dambas magaaladii ka wada dhigeen dahabkiina wada dhaceen, laakin our friend, Gaaroodi, xoogoow ha yareeyo the non stop mentioning of British ayaa sidan ah and sidaan ah, sidaas yidhi, am sure Somalis documented the events much better than the British waa hadii la raadiyo, that is my point.

[Wadani]

Che -Guevara;969340 wrote:

We shall contribute when there's something worthy discussing, till then not a lot effort needs to be wasted on grown men with chip on their shoulders. This is not tol khat session.

You can belittle us and our arguements all you want, but it's reduced to nothing but hot air if you don't counter Gaaroodi's research with counter arguements supported by facts.

[Cambuulo iyo bun]

Garoodi rageedi

[Wadani]

nuune;969341 wrote:

Lander

, waxa aanba ka soo hrojeedo illaa iyo waagii aan aniga iyo adiga meejan SOL isla joogney waa Britishka, ma Britishkii cadowga ahaa ayaan sourcigooda aaminayaa oon dhihi karaaba they documented these events pretty well, kaligoodna on the ground ma joogin, what makes them neutral anyway, ayagaaba cadaw ahaa at the time regardless the partnership they had with some tribes at the time, halkaa dib ugu noqo, Abti. The Portugeese one was metaphorical, hence I do hate the Portuqiis more since intey Xamar yimaadeen, quruxdeeda ka yaabeen, even better built than Lisbon at the time, ayey intey ku xanaqeen bey dambas magaaladii ka wada dhigeen dahabkiina wada dhaceen, laakin our friend, Gaaroodi, xoogoow ha yareeyo the non stop mentioning of British ayaa sidan ah and sidaan ah, sidaas yidhi, am sure Somalis documented the events much better than the British waa hadii la raadiyo, that is my point.

You do realize that these British sources that you're complaining about were also used extensively by Aw Jaamax, Faarax Idaaja and the other practitioners of historical alchemy who miraculously turned fairy-tales into fact. So Gaaroodi isn't doing something new here by citing British sources, but he is doing something new by posting these online for all to see, free of the clan motivated selectiveness and distortions of the Kacaan/neo-D@@rood historians.

 

Your notion that the British were biased and not neutral in reporting the events on the ground is illogical. Firstly, the British have no vested interest in painting one clan as more heroic than another nor as being more devoted to the daraawiish cause. But for arguements sake let's say the British were reporting in a biased fashion because they favoured the SNM clan over the Khaatumo clan (which I assume u are alluding to in your comment about neutrality). Why would they portray their chosen clan as hostile to British interests?. In such a case would they not go out of their way to highlight the loyalty of the SNM clan (loyalty being a virtuous attribute in their warped colonial minds) and exaggerate the belligerence and rebelliousness of the Khaatumo clan? This would make what Gaaroodi is currently doing almost impossible, as he'd have nothing or very little to substantiate his claims. But as you can clearly see we find no such bias in their historical records, because it is filled with accounts of perpetually shifting alliances within the region involving all the clans. There was no black and white divide between British friendly clans and pro Daraawiish clans, as the situation could and did change within months or a few years.

 

Secondly, it was not in the interest of the British to report inaccurate accounts of what was happening in Somaliland, as much of these writings influenced the military and political policies pursued by the british in the said region. Inaccuracies in the form of additions, deletions and embellishments would cost them dearly in terms of human and economic resources.

 

As for your last point, well it just boggles the mind how you could invest in Somali historians the power to be neutral in their accounts, knowing the power clan bias has on perception and interpretation, while accusing the White European who belonged to no clan, and who was only in Somaliland to ship somali meat to Aden and viewed all of us as wild and savage nomads, of being biased in his rendition of the facts.

[GAROODI]

Even the pictures they use are landers:

 

This is a picture of haji guleid: on the top hand corner the man sitting with the other men:

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&q=dervish+somali+xaaji+guuleed&spell=1&sa=X&ei=OJTnUYeLAcXP0AWe44GQDw&ved=0CDkQvwUoAA&biw=320&bih=416#

 

This is a picture of south Hargaisan preparing to take back there cattle:

 

http://hornhistory.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/duulaankii-dayax-weerar-iyo-caalya-1904.html?m=1

 

The man on the horse is lander Risaadlr Haji Muse farah igare

 

http://beenaywaarun.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/dagaalkii-taleex-iyo-midhiso.html?m=1

 

These pictures are the celebrations of the approach of suldan Nuur:

 

http://hornhistory.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/suldaan-nuur-amaan.html?m=1

[GAROODI]

Notice how the only photos they have of that time are of the same landers:

 

Propaganda video:

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

[Mintid Farayar]

Garoodi :)

 

I think you've single-handedly put that history to rest. Any future questions on this subject matter and we'll kindly refer them to this 'thread'.

 

It takes a lot of effort to put this research together. Your contrasting presentations of 'Kacaan-ist' youtube dissertations with actual first-hand, historical British military intelligence reports (which the Kacaan historians themselves referenced, as Wadani pointed out) left little space for others to challenge. Therefore, all retorts have attacked you personally, rather than your argument.

 

Overall, an interesting read. Thank you...

[Mad_Mullah]

I don't get what's going on, are you saying that the majority of followers of the Mad Mullah were from the Is--aaq?

[Wadani]

Mad_Mullah;969405 wrote:

I don't get what's going on, are you saying that the majority of followers of the Mad Mullah were from the Is--aaq?

No, the followers consisted of all clans. Sometimes majority SNM, sometimes and actually for a long time majority SSDF, and sometimes majority Khaatumo/O.G. But Aw Jaamac and Idaaja and the rest would have you believe that SNM were gaalo raac and that D-block were valiant warriors fighting the British.

 

The leadership of the Daraawiish is a different story though. Those at the very top of the movement were majority SNM.

[Che -Guevara]

Wadani. us? You aptly demonstrated the whole purpose of this thread. As you were...

[Haatu]

Mad_Mullah;969405 wrote:

I don't get what's going on, are you saying that the majority of followers of the Mad Mullah were from the Is--aaq?

I'm still confused as to what Gaaroodi and his SNM brothers' point is. Are they saying the Daraawiish was not a clan movement but a national movement (even though everyone knows this) or are they saying Idaajaa & Co. left out doorkii SNMka in the movement?

[Wadani]

Che -Guevara;969408 wrote:

Wadani. us? You aptly demonstrated the whole purpose of this thread. As you were...

Huh?

[Che -Guevara]

Never mind.

 

Haatu. They are interesting lot.