Somali Journal Launches Without any Somali Voices, Highlighting Another Case of White Privilege in Academia - By Huda Hassan

[DoctorKenney]

<cite>

@Namrood

said:</cite>

Markus didn't attack Somalis collectively, he defended himself against your disingenuous, and schemeful attempt to discredit him academically.

 

Now that doesn't mean I agree with the journal's existence (which I find dubious). In fact, Markus isn't that sharp and I'm astonished that you and your counterparts couldn't intellectually karbash him and instead resort to victim-hood sensationalism.

 

Exactly.

 

I'm very surprised that Safferz couldn't formulate a worthy response to this Markus character! She is an academic who studies at Harvard and I'm sure she has the resources in front of her to create a proper academic response.

 

But no, she decided to look at the color of his skin and she tried a political witch-hunt against this man, while complaining about "White Privilege"

 

I wonder if Safferz would have had the same response if a Nigerian foreigner decided to post some academic studies about Somalia. Would she have the same response? What if it was a Kenyan who posted this study instead?

 

Or is this treatment only reserved for white men?

[DoctorKenney]

In the world of academia, EVERYTHING is fair game. Everything is open for study and debate.

 

Hence why there are thousands of White Americans who studied Chinese history and language so they could have their minds open to the world around them. Them not being Chinese is totally irrelevant.

 

What Safferz is doing is fundamentally anti-academic and frankly it's racist as well. This is pure racism.

[namrood]

This deserves only hashtags.

 

#ImExhibitingManipulativeChildBehaviorRewardMeAdultWorld

 

#ThisIsHowIt'sDoneOnTheHouseOfCardsRight?

 

#ICantBeObjectiveSoIinsistYouStopTryingToBeObjective

 

#EmpiricismIsAFormOfColonizationBecauseThereAreControlGroups

 

#BelieveMySyntacticallyCorrectNonsenseOrImayHitYouWithMyKwanzaaCandleHolder

[DoctorKenney]

And then she has the nerve to call me "Uncle Ruckus" because I'm being objective and fair.

[namrood]

 

Doctor Kenny, you're not an "Uncle Ruckus" because you wouldn't be here if you thought that way.

 

Safferz, stop taking cheap shots, win honorably, and respect people's autonomy and dignity by not manipulating them.

 

Adios.

 

 

 

 

[Mooge]

looool. niyoow I missed my girl Safeerz's fight with cadaan guys. What happened niyoow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DoctorKenney]

<cite>

@Mooge

said:</cite>

looool. niyoow I missed my girl Safeerz's fight with cadaan guys. What happened niyoow?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently, Safferz is angry that a White Man "dared" to write about Somali history without first consulting her permission.

 

That's what it looks like to me.

[ElPunto]

^Relax - not sure why you are making things so personal.

 

 

 

 

<cite>@Namrood said:</cite>

Markus didn’t attack Somalis collectively, he defended himself against your disingenuous, and schemeful attempt to discredit him academically.

 

Now that doesn’t mean I agree with the journal’s existence (which I find dubious). In fact, Markus isn’t that sharp and I’m astonished that you and your counterparts couldn’t intellectually karbash him and instead resort to victim-hood sensationalism.

 

 

Exactly.

 

I’m very surprised that Safferz couldn’t formulate a worthy response to this Markus character! She is an academic who studies at Harvard and I’m sure she has the resources in front of her to create a proper academic response.

 

But no, she decided to look at the color of his skin and she tried a political witch-hunt against this man, while complaining about “White Privilege”

 

I wonder if Safferz would have had the same response if a Nigerian foreigner decided to post some academic studies about Somalia. Would she have the same response? What if it was a Kenyan who posted this study instead?

 

Or is this treatment only reserved for white men?

 

These comments are crap.

 

1- Markus did attack Somalis as a whole when he says - "I did NOT come accross [sic] many younger Somalis who would qualify as serious SCHOLARS – not because they lack access to sources, but because they seem not to value scholarship as such." and when he says - "Fine. I will go. You and your friends can talk about a stupid white man who is colonizing you, but I think that when you are finished talking about colonialism, you will go back to your Somali tribalism."

 

2- The point of this campaign is not that white scholars are studying Somalia and its history. It is/was a discussion on the lack of effort at including Somali voices. This discussion was mishandled by Markus who responded in an intemperate manner. That gave life to what would have otherwise been a discussion for only a few passionate activists.

 

End of story.

[Alpha Blondy]

they hating because its a Somaliland journal. shameful.

[Tallaabo]

<cite>

@ElPunto

said:</cite>

^Relax - not sure why you are making things so personal.

I don't see him making anything personal. On the contrary he is being very objective.

 

These comments are crap.

No they are not. Indeed these comments are by far the most serious challenge to this ridiculous and unwarranted campaign against a man who has done absolutely nothing wrong.

 

1- Markus did attack Somalis as a whole when he says - "I did NOT come accross [sic] many younger Somalis who would qualify as serious SCHOLARS – not because they lack access to sources, but because they seem not to value scholarship as such." and when he says - "Fine. I will go. You and your friends can talk about a stupid white man who is colonizing you, but I think that when you are finished talking about colonialism, you will go back to your Somali tribalism."

These statements made by Markus could not be closer to the truth. Indeed he knows a thing or two about us.

 

2- The point of this campaign is not that white scholars are studying Somalia and its history. It is/was a discussion on the lack of effort at including Somali voices. This discussion was mishandled by Markus who responded in an intemperate manner. That gave life to what would have otherwise been a discussion for only a few passionate activists.

 

End of story.

I said it before and will say it again. This journal is like any other private business and therefore it is upto its owners to decide the make up of its staff.

[namrood]

<cite>

@ElPunto

said:</cite>

 

1- Markus did attack Somalis as a whole when he says - "I did NOT come accross [sic] many younger Somalis who would qualify as serious SCHOLARS – not because they lack access to sources, but because they seem not to value scholarship as such." and when he says - "Fine. I will go. You and your friends can talk about a stupid white man who is colonizing you, but I think that when you are finished talking about colonialism, you will go back to your Somali tribalism."

ElPunto, don't group my comment with DK's comment. That is deceitful.

 

1. Markus' first (out of context) comment you provided here as proof of an "Attack on Somalis" is a defensive explanation of his rationale for that FB comment section's commenters, and Safferz in particular.

 

2. Markus' second (out of context) comment you provided here as proof of an "Attack on Somalis" is Markus' unprofessional emotional comeback directed at that intended FB audience, and Safferz in particular.

 

ElContextomy, stop quoting people out of context, especially in a mudslinging FB thread.

 

 

[ElPunto]

<cite>

@Tallaabo

said:</cite>

I don't see him making anything personal. On the contrary he is being very objective.

 

When he says - 'Safferz is angry that a White Man “dared” to write about Somali history without first consulting her permission.' - he is referring to her emotional state which he cannot know and which is irrelevant to her argument if he is being 'objective'. These sorts of statements are making it personal.

 

 

 

No they are not. Indeed these comments are by far the most serious challenge to this ridiculous and unwarranted campaign against a man who has done absolutely nothing wrong.

 

These statements made by Markus could not be closer to the truth. Indeed he knows a thing or two about us.

 

The vast majority of any national group would take it as an insult when someone says you have no scholars because you are unable to do what is needed to be a scholar. And it's untrue. But if this plays up to the self-loathing you have as a Somali - then you are welcome to revel in his remarks.

 

I said it before and will say it again. This journal is like any other private business and therefore it is upto its owners to decide the make up of its staff.

 

I will say it again here - it's none of your damn business if Safferz or anyone else wants to engage in a discussion or showdown with a private journal. Move it along.

[ElPunto]

<cite>

@Namrood

said:</cite>

ElPunto, don't group my comment with DK's comment. That is deceitful.

 

1. Markus' first (out of context) comment you provided here for proof of an "Attack on Somalis" is a defensive explanation of his rationale for that FB comment section's commenters, and Safferz in particular.

 

2. Markus' second (out of context) comment you provided here for proof of an "Attack on Somalis" is Markus' unprofessional emotional comeback directed at that intended FB audience, and Safferz in particular.

 

ElContextomy, stop quoting people out of context, especially in a mudslinging FB thread.

 

 

 

Noobs!! Do you know the meaning of the word deceitful? Clearly not.

 

Nothing is out of context. The posts and responses are all there for anyone seeking further details.

 

1- That is no defensive explanation. If he stopped at - I haven't seen any Somali scholars then that would have been fine. When he says you don't have the capability to produce scholars - that is crossing the line.

 

2- You can call it unprofessional and minimize it in any way but the gist of it was another insult/attack.

 

Get it over it boys. Not sure why you're getting so worked up over someone else's passions.

[namrood]

<cite>

@ElPunto

said:</cite>

 

1- That is no defensive explanation. If he stopped at - I haven't seen any Somali scholars then that would have been fine. When he says you don't have the capability to produce scholars - that is crossing the line.

 

Once again, stop being deceitful ElPunto.

 

1. You tried coupling DK's comment with mine because his had holes you could poke.

 

2. Both of your quotes were intentionally out of context, just like in Safferz's article.

 

3. Markus never said Somalis don't have the capability to produce scholars.

 

Stop lying to me and stop trying to trick me. It's not working.

[ElPunto]

^Ok sweetheart. Whatever floats your boat.