Talk:Shifta War

introduction of conflicting refs

Note that the phrasing introduced by the anon: "pastoralism was well-suited to the arid conditions and the non-Somali residents -- who represented a tiny minority of the region's population -- were relatively prosperous" contradicts the quote immediately following, which in turn makes the ending quote pointless. While I haven't read the introduced refs, I would like to hear more about them - given that Baxter appears to be describing "prosperous" and something other than per capital income. - BanyanTree 21:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

not secessionist?

Rather than getting into a lame edit war, I'll ask why is this not a "secessionist" war? - BanyanTree 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite ;-) Describing the Shifta war as a "secessionist" conflict is inaccurate for the following reasons, taken from the text:

"On June 26, 1960, four days before granting British Somaliland independence, the British government declared that all Somali areas should be unified in one administrative region. However, after the dissolution of the former British colonies in East Africa, Britain granted adminstration of the Northern Frontier District to Kenyan nationalists despite a) an informal plebiscite demonstrating the overwhelming desire of the region's population to join the newly-formed Somali Republic, and b) the fact that the NFD was and still is almost exclusively inhabited by ethnic Somalis." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.248.189 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but those people ended up in Kenya and engaged in a war to remove themselves and their territory from Kenyan sovereignty. That is the very definition of a secessionist conflict. (It was irredentist from the perspective of Somalia, of course.) I don't even see a counter-argument in that quotation, just the foundation for my argument.

Also, please sign your posts with four tildes, or click the little signature button above the window button. My watchlist is set up to ignore edits by bots, so when a bot signs for you my watchlist doesn't show that you have posted. BanyanTree 00:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That land wasn't Kenyan to begin with. The few non-Somalis that lived and still live there are other pastoralists, mostly of Oromo Ethiopic stock. Kenya's lone claim to the land is Britain's colonial assurance that they "could have it", nevermind the fact that they'd never set foot in the land to begin with, and that it is a violation of the self-determination principle for the actual inhabitants of the land. If you want to keep the "secessionist" label, fine. But that won't make the NFD anymore "Kenyan" than it is or has ever historically been. 76.68.248.189 (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, they don't get to make that decision. The colonials got to draw the lines on the maps, they drew the NFD into Kenya, and attempts to move the NFD lines inside the Somalia lines count as secessionist.

I've gained enough information at this point to decide that you are editing from a perspective of Somali nationalism, e.g. editing the article to reflect an argument of ethnic nationalism rather than definitions of international relations. I am going to revert. - BanyanTree 01:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

References