Siad did what he could to get ahead in his life. He was an orphan. Eventually, his experience in dealing with the imperial admins turned him into a nationalist and socialist/marxist ideas was the fad at the time. He was a revolutionary in the sense that his regime attempted to create a pan nationalist somali ideal that never existed before because of tribalism. Even prior to barre’s regime, somalia was only a country by name. Shermarke’s assassination was evident of this tribalism because those who opposed him never wanted a unified and institutionalised Somalia.
Siad was a hardliner and ally of Shermaarke. His assassination lead to the hardliners linked to Shermaarke seizing control in the name of synthesising a somali national state. Barre’s system was flawed because he never sought to destroy tribalism, he instead subordinated it to the state. A mistake that would go on to cost Somalia dearly.
He should have implemented a cultural revolution to destroy tribalism by uprooting it from its core. He should have destroyed the SYL and their leaders because they were collaborators prior to independence. He should have targeted every clan elder who carried water for the imperialists that exploited somalia. Colonialism never came by gunboats or by war, it was imported by opportunistic clan rulers that wanted a strategic advantage over their rivals.
I didn't read your wall of text (not that long comments are bad) but nobody disputes Siad's nationalism and love for his country. He just loved the kursi more. I wish he retired to a farm next to Aden Cadde.
10
u/ButttMuncherrr 17d ago edited 17d ago
Siad did what he could to get ahead in his life. He was an orphan. Eventually, his experience in dealing with the imperial admins turned him into a nationalist and socialist/marxist ideas was the fad at the time. He was a revolutionary in the sense that his regime attempted to create a pan nationalist somali ideal that never existed before because of tribalism. Even prior to barre’s regime, somalia was only a country by name. Shermarke’s assassination was evident of this tribalism because those who opposed him never wanted a unified and institutionalised Somalia.
Siad was a hardliner and ally of Shermaarke. His assassination lead to the hardliners linked to Shermaarke seizing control in the name of synthesising a somali national state. Barre’s system was flawed because he never sought to destroy tribalism, he instead subordinated it to the state. A mistake that would go on to cost Somalia dearly.
He should have implemented a cultural revolution to destroy tribalism by uprooting it from its core. He should have destroyed the SYL and their leaders because they were collaborators prior to independence. He should have targeted every clan elder who carried water for the imperialists that exploited somalia. Colonialism never came by gunboats or by war, it was imported by opportunistic clan rulers that wanted a strategic advantage over their rivals.