One of my exes (yes, sadly I've more than one) family were Very Progressive Catholics who lived in St. Paul. My connection with them was in the late 70s-mid 80s. They were quite proud that their church was declared a 'nuclear free zone' as a counter to that evil fascist Ronald Reagan. When I reminded them that their virtue signaling was only possible due to the US being a nuclear power I became anathema to them. I'm quite sure they were among the first to engage in suicidal empathy and welcome the poor, innocent invaders to the Twin Cities. Too bad, as Minnesota is a beautiful state run by mucking forons.
After the Mogadishu "Blackhawk Down" disaster (as well as reading about Somali conduct generally, both here and back in Somalia) , I have a visceral dislike/distrust of Somalis anyway.
Omar Fatah looks like the giggling psychopath-torturer henchman to the villain in a bad old movie serial.
Heh...they say you can't judge a book by its cover and that the movie made from a book is often more terrible than the book. Well, maybe yes you can and it would have made a terrible movie had the book been published. Kinda spot on, Celia.
The boundaries between nations in most of Africa date from the colonial era. Civil servants in various European nations had to sort out who went where after their traders and (sometimes) armies had grabbed as much of parts of Africa as they could. They tended to look for natural boundaries such as a river or a mountain range, draw a line right down the middle of it, and declare that the boundary between their nations (for example, British Kenya and German Tanganyika - today Tanzania - or British South Africa and German South West Africa - today Namibia). In the latter case, Britain got all dog-in-the-manger and annexed the only viable port on the South West African shoreline - Walvis (Whale) Bay - before the Germans could annex it as part of their colony, which led to all sorts of legalistic shenanigans when South West Africa finally became independent of everybody.
As for Somalia, there are certain nations and/or tribes in parts of Africa that no other African trusts. Nigerians are universally loathed as thieves and con artists. Somalis are universally distrusted and feared as troublemakers and pirates. In both cases, the particular Nigerian or Somali tribe isn't an issue - it's the location. However, when you actually go to those nations, you very soon learn that tribe is the dominant factor when it comes to loyalty and commitment, just as it is in most of Africa. South Africa, for example, has eleven official languages: English, Afrikaans (a derivative of Dutch), and nine tribal languages, including Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Venda, Tswana, Swazi, and a few other variations. When you consider that a court case has to provide translators for any and all of those involved who insist on their own native language being used, the resulting brouhaha can be . . . interesting.
In all of the above, tribe is the dominant factor. It was precisely the same in North America right up until the Wild West era. Almost every Native American tribe referred to itself, in its own language, as "The people" - with a capital T. All other tribes were "others", "outsiders" or just plain "enemy" - there were tribes that had no word for stranger except "enemy". Most of those tribal animosities got shot to pieces, along with the tribes concerned, but even today, on various Native American reservations around this country, you'll find some who hew to the old ways and old attitudes.
Ian is absolutely correct. Somalis live or die - literally - by their tribal allegiance. If a Somali is cast out from his tribe, he is literally "outlaw" in the old English sense of the term - outside the law. Anybody can kill him, rob him, whatever, because he has no standing in the community any longer. When two or more tribes face off against each other, it's to the death, even though that death may take generations to arrange. In southern Africa, there are inter-tribal and inter-clan rivalries and hatreds that still cause death and destruction scores, even hundreds of years after they first arose. "Your great-great-grandfather raped my great-great-grandmother, therefore I am going to rape your great-grandchild!" That's literally and exactly the sort of justification that they'll offer before committing yet another atrocity that ensures the feud will continue unto the last generation.
When it comes to Africa and primitive beliefs, listen to Ian. He knows whereof he speaks. As for Minneapolis with two rival Somali clans now at each other's political throats . . . I don't believe it'll be long before they're at each other's physical throats as well. Their hatred and rivalry goes back generations. They didn't leave the feuds behind when they came to America: they brought them with them. Now the rest of us have to put up with them.
You mention the 9 major tribes in South Africa, Mr. Grant. Let's remember back when South Africa had a vibrant economy compared to the rest of the continent and attracted job seeking immigrants from the rest of Africa and abroad. That probably really adds greatly to their diversity "blessing".
Yes. Look at the mess that was made with the Kurds. The Turks want them gone, the Iraqis want them gone, the Iranians the same. All of them, other than the Kurds, appear to have forgotten Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub was a Kurd. He's more commonly known as Saladin. I'm waiting to see how that plays out.
Bill Clinton and especiall Les Aspin did not prove themselves master military tacticians during Gothic Serpent. Side note: I was brought on active duty to support the CENTCOM/J2 in establishing and executing intel support to the troops on the ground. But that's a story for another 'NSTIW' episode.
Aspin "you don't need no tanks" and Bill "don't look at what I'm doing elsewhere" Clinton were preceded by HW Bush sending in the Marines to help the UN disburse their aid more fairly. 🤦♂️
So we can thank both parties for the goat rope of Gothic Serpent.
When we don't have a "dog in the fight," our government will make sure to send bodies. 🤬
I shouldn't go there...but you know what usually happens after a goat rope. I used to raise goats. When a nanny gets her head stuck in a pasture fence while grazing greener stuff on the other side and can't get loose...it ain't a pretty picture. :(
What Africa needs is either another several hundred years of good old fashioned paternalistic colonialism, on the order of the British Raj OR to be left alone long enough to go through the centuries of bickering, wars, and consolidation that Western Europe went through to establish relatively firm countries like France, Italy, Germany, etc. . And I do note that said consolidation was only fairly recent in European history.
As "Heart of Darkness" noted, London was seen by the Romans as the dark heart of uncivilized savagery. Who were themselves viewed as uncouth barbarians a few centuries earlier by the Greeks- and they by the Egyptians centuries before that.
African tribes doing what they do, and will be doing long after we're gone. This people group cannot be fixed, no matter how hard AWFL's and social justice jihadis activize on their behalf.
Oh, it can be fixed. After all, once it was that your ancestors and mine lived in mud huts and killed each other over cattle, women, and insults.
The difference is that for various reasons our ancestors were forced to get that nonsense out of their systems. Africa hasn't had that kind of pressure.
I agree that, barring great changes in how the West tries to ‘fix’ problems in Africa, such attempts are doomed to failure. As I suggested elsewhere, the tribes either need a few hundred years of paternalistic colonialism OR to be left to their own devices for at least that long, with the African equivalent of the many European wars to sort matters out amongst themselves. Attempts at ‘Nation building’ that don’t last more than a few decades will make no impression. And ‘foreign aid’ is usually either wasted on prestige projects of minimal utility or simply stolen.
As I recall, the recollections of Mr. Grant and his fellow Sefrican expat Kim du Toit typically end with “Africa wins again.” Certainly seems to address modern day Minneapolis too.
The two waves of Somali refugees, and the several waves of Haitian refugees, and select waves of other refugees, would cause me to wonder, in my darker moments, whether the United States should still be in the business of taking in refugees.
Past waves, from the Germanish to the Irish to the Bohemians to the Slavs to the Chinese to the Italians to the Poles to the Cubans, etc., etc. etc., all seemed to be, well, grateful for the opportunity to start over, even if they started with very little, since all were aware that the alternative was to be ground into meat-paste in stupid wars in the homeland, or pay perpetual poverty-ruined obeisance to the Dear Leader.
Whereas the recent crowds of refugees, not so much.
Golly, makes you wonder just how American they wish to become.
God, the irony. Many, many years ago my bride and I ventured from Memphis to Minnesota to visit her relatives. Driving from the airport to the community the Jensons lived, something seemed... off. At first I thought it was all the Scandinavian looking people.
After we retired for the night, Jenny made the same observation. We talked some more. Then we turned to each other and said in unison, "There's no black people."
In Memphis, no matter what part of the town or suburbs you're in, it's always mixed. The majority might be black, brown, or white. But never one to the exclusion of all others.
We didn't see a single African American till we went through the heart of Minneapolis on the way to somewhere else.
I have many friends in Minneapolis, whom I am very certain are going to be in mortal danger in the next year or so, despite being wholly in denial/ignorant bliss about why.
There is sound reason we ($HOUSEMATE & I) though we reside in MN, avoid Mogadishuon the Mississippi save for visiting my sister who had the misfortune to live in St. Paul. Granted a far better place than a few years back when truly in "da hood" in Minneapolis.
Don't forget Ohio. The capital, Columbus, got 40,000 Somalis in the initial transfer. Settled mostly together on the east side IIRC. Don't know the tribal affiliation but they took over the temp job field to the extreme dislike of the local American born African types who used to have them.
I don't know. It's possible the agencies made more by paying less (due to language, whatever) and charged the usual. My suspicion is it was more political as the then mayor played a big part in bringing them in. He wanted to put Columbus on the "international" map (whatever that meant) and I believe there was fed silver involved. Of course once they were here they brought over families. No idea what the population grew to.
One of my exes (yes, sadly I've more than one) family were Very Progressive Catholics who lived in St. Paul. My connection with them was in the late 70s-mid 80s. They were quite proud that their church was declared a 'nuclear free zone' as a counter to that evil fascist Ronald Reagan. When I reminded them that their virtue signaling was only possible due to the US being a nuclear power I became anathema to them. I'm quite sure they were among the first to engage in suicidal empathy and welcome the poor, innocent invaders to the Twin Cities. Too bad, as Minnesota is a beautiful state run by mucking forons.
"Suicidal empathy"....very well put.
What did they put in the middle of their atoms?
Lutheran, Catholic and other Christian charities & NGO's...mucking forons sometimes. Here's where an "OMG" might be appropriate. OMG.
I had decided a few years ago never to enter Minneapolis unarmed.
Looks like I need to double down on that.
Or just don't enter?
I do avoid it whenever possible, but I can't avoid it entirely.
If your risk assessment says you can go there, then so be it. I applaud you exercising your free will.
Remember what Larry Correia says about how much ammo you need.
After the Mogadishu "Blackhawk Down" disaster (as well as reading about Somali conduct generally, both here and back in Somalia) , I have a visceral dislike/distrust of Somalis anyway.
Omar Fatah looks like the giggling psychopath-torturer henchman to the villain in a bad old movie serial.
Heh...they say you can't judge a book by its cover and that the movie made from a book is often more terrible than the book. Well, maybe yes you can and it would have made a terrible movie had the book been published. Kinda spot on, Celia.
Heh.
The boundaries between nations in most of Africa date from the colonial era. Civil servants in various European nations had to sort out who went where after their traders and (sometimes) armies had grabbed as much of parts of Africa as they could. They tended to look for natural boundaries such as a river or a mountain range, draw a line right down the middle of it, and declare that the boundary between their nations (for example, British Kenya and German Tanganyika - today Tanzania - or British South Africa and German South West Africa - today Namibia). In the latter case, Britain got all dog-in-the-manger and annexed the only viable port on the South West African shoreline - Walvis (Whale) Bay - before the Germans could annex it as part of their colony, which led to all sorts of legalistic shenanigans when South West Africa finally became independent of everybody.
As for Somalia, there are certain nations and/or tribes in parts of Africa that no other African trusts. Nigerians are universally loathed as thieves and con artists. Somalis are universally distrusted and feared as troublemakers and pirates. In both cases, the particular Nigerian or Somali tribe isn't an issue - it's the location. However, when you actually go to those nations, you very soon learn that tribe is the dominant factor when it comes to loyalty and commitment, just as it is in most of Africa. South Africa, for example, has eleven official languages: English, Afrikaans (a derivative of Dutch), and nine tribal languages, including Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Venda, Tswana, Swazi, and a few other variations. When you consider that a court case has to provide translators for any and all of those involved who insist on their own native language being used, the resulting brouhaha can be . . . interesting.
In all of the above, tribe is the dominant factor. It was precisely the same in North America right up until the Wild West era. Almost every Native American tribe referred to itself, in its own language, as "The people" - with a capital T. All other tribes were "others", "outsiders" or just plain "enemy" - there were tribes that had no word for stranger except "enemy". Most of those tribal animosities got shot to pieces, along with the tribes concerned, but even today, on various Native American reservations around this country, you'll find some who hew to the old ways and old attitudes.
Ian is absolutely correct. Somalis live or die - literally - by their tribal allegiance. If a Somali is cast out from his tribe, he is literally "outlaw" in the old English sense of the term - outside the law. Anybody can kill him, rob him, whatever, because he has no standing in the community any longer. When two or more tribes face off against each other, it's to the death, even though that death may take generations to arrange. In southern Africa, there are inter-tribal and inter-clan rivalries and hatreds that still cause death and destruction scores, even hundreds of years after they first arose. "Your great-great-grandfather raped my great-great-grandmother, therefore I am going to rape your great-grandchild!" That's literally and exactly the sort of justification that they'll offer before committing yet another atrocity that ensures the feud will continue unto the last generation.
When it comes to Africa and primitive beliefs, listen to Ian. He knows whereof he speaks. As for Minneapolis with two rival Somali clans now at each other's political throats . . . I don't believe it'll be long before they're at each other's physical throats as well. Their hatred and rivalry goes back generations. They didn't leave the feuds behind when they came to America: they brought them with them. Now the rest of us have to put up with them.
Joy.
You mention the 9 major tribes in South Africa, Mr. Grant. Let's remember back when South Africa had a vibrant economy compared to the rest of the continent and attracted job seeking immigrants from the rest of Africa and abroad. That probably really adds greatly to their diversity "blessing".
Yes. Look at the mess that was made with the Kurds. The Turks want them gone, the Iraqis want them gone, the Iranians the same. All of them, other than the Kurds, appear to have forgotten Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub was a Kurd. He's more commonly known as Saladin. I'm waiting to see how that plays out.
I'm wondering how long before we go back to Kurdistan, Persia, and the like.
Bill Clinton and especiall Les Aspin did not prove themselves master military tacticians during Gothic Serpent. Side note: I was brought on active duty to support the CENTCOM/J2 in establishing and executing intel support to the troops on the ground. But that's a story for another 'NSTIW' episode.
Aspin "you don't need no tanks" and Bill "don't look at what I'm doing elsewhere" Clinton were preceded by HW Bush sending in the Marines to help the UN disburse their aid more fairly. 🤦♂️
So we can thank both parties for the goat rope of Gothic Serpent.
When we don't have a "dog in the fight," our government will make sure to send bodies. 🤬
Nigeria next. 🫤
I shouldn't go there...but you know what usually happens after a goat rope. I used to raise goats. When a nanny gets her head stuck in a pasture fence while grazing greener stuff on the other side and can't get loose...it ain't a pretty picture. :(
What Africa needs is either another several hundred years of good old fashioned paternalistic colonialism, on the order of the British Raj OR to be left alone long enough to go through the centuries of bickering, wars, and consolidation that Western Europe went through to establish relatively firm countries like France, Italy, Germany, etc. . And I do note that said consolidation was only fairly recent in European history.
As "Heart of Darkness" noted, London was seen by the Romans as the dark heart of uncivilized savagery. Who were themselves viewed as uncouth barbarians a few centuries earlier by the Greeks- and they by the Egyptians centuries before that.
African tribes doing what they do, and will be doing long after we're gone. This people group cannot be fixed, no matter how hard AWFL's and social justice jihadis activize on their behalf.
Oh, it can be fixed. After all, once it was that your ancestors and mine lived in mud huts and killed each other over cattle, women, and insults.
The difference is that for various reasons our ancestors were forced to get that nonsense out of their systems. Africa hasn't had that kind of pressure.
I agree that, barring great changes in how the West tries to ‘fix’ problems in Africa, such attempts are doomed to failure. As I suggested elsewhere, the tribes either need a few hundred years of paternalistic colonialism OR to be left to their own devices for at least that long, with the African equivalent of the many European wars to sort matters out amongst themselves. Attempts at ‘Nation building’ that don’t last more than a few decades will make no impression. And ‘foreign aid’ is usually either wasted on prestige projects of minimal utility or simply stolen.
As I recall, the recollections of Mr. Grant and his fellow Sefrican expat Kim du Toit typically end with “Africa wins again.” Certainly seems to address modern day Minneapolis too.
The two waves of Somali refugees, and the several waves of Haitian refugees, and select waves of other refugees, would cause me to wonder, in my darker moments, whether the United States should still be in the business of taking in refugees.
Past waves, from the Germanish to the Irish to the Bohemians to the Slavs to the Chinese to the Italians to the Poles to the Cubans, etc., etc. etc., all seemed to be, well, grateful for the opportunity to start over, even if they started with very little, since all were aware that the alternative was to be ground into meat-paste in stupid wars in the homeland, or pay perpetual poverty-ruined obeisance to the Dear Leader.
Whereas the recent crowds of refugees, not so much.
Golly, makes you wonder just how American they wish to become.
God, the irony. Many, many years ago my bride and I ventured from Memphis to Minnesota to visit her relatives. Driving from the airport to the community the Jensons lived, something seemed... off. At first I thought it was all the Scandinavian looking people.
After we retired for the night, Jenny made the same observation. We talked some more. Then we turned to each other and said in unison, "There's no black people."
In Memphis, no matter what part of the town or suburbs you're in, it's always mixed. The majority might be black, brown, or white. But never one to the exclusion of all others.
We didn't see a single African American till we went through the heart of Minneapolis on the way to somewhere else.
I guess things have changed.
I have many friends in Minneapolis, whom I am very certain are going to be in mortal danger in the next year or so, despite being wholly in denial/ignorant bliss about why.
There is sound reason we ($HOUSEMATE & I) though we reside in MN, avoid Mogadishuon the Mississippi save for visiting my sister who had the misfortune to live in St. Paul. Granted a far better place than a few years back when truly in "da hood" in Minneapolis.
Don't forget Ohio. The capital, Columbus, got 40,000 Somalis in the initial transfer. Settled mostly together on the east side IIRC. Don't know the tribal affiliation but they took over the temp job field to the extreme dislike of the local American born African types who used to have them.
Am curious, Steve. Did the newbs have a better work ethic, or hire out cheaper. Would like to understand how one group won out over another.
I don't know. It's possible the agencies made more by paying less (due to language, whatever) and charged the usual. My suspicion is it was more political as the then mayor played a big part in bringing them in. He wanted to put Columbus on the "international" map (whatever that meant) and I believe there was fed silver involved. Of course once they were here they brought over families. No idea what the population grew to.
And I'm not planning on going up there any time soon. First, it's a city. Second, it's way too far north and thus way too cold for this southern boy.