₦airaland Forum

[quote author=ekt_bear link=topic=735658.msg8930169#msg8930169 date=1313437316]"Free" healthcare means the gov't taxes the populace then redistributes the money on healthcare.[/quote]. . . which is still a Socialist concept - "even" redistribution of resources.

[quote author=ekt_bear link=topic=735658.msg8930112#msg8930112 date=1313436919]Regarding the hospital, if they treat everyone regardless of their ability to pay, how long will the hospital be able to stay open? You realize that healthcare costs money, right? And nobody can stay open for long if he sells something (healthcare) for less than it costs?[/quote]As I had pointed out, quite a number of "Capitalist" countries have free healthcare; clearly a Socialist concept, not so?

One other point people don't seem to realize is, Nigeria operates at a higher level of Capitalism than even the US. Or how else do you explain a bleeding person taken to the hospital only to be allowed to bleed to death in the lobby because the family could not come up with the 500,000 deposit? That is Capitalism; it is a system closer to our cave-men ancestors. There is little or no empathy in Capitalism. And it is the same system that led to the take over of Australia, Canada, the US, New Zealand etc by the whites, while nearly wiping out the natives of those lands. That is Capitalism.

@ekt_bear,

The fact that you are caught up on the "equality" concept of Communism shows you do not understand it. I have tried to explain. Money/wealth is power, and with Capitalism, of course the wealthy will always be at the very top. And no, "there will not always be outliers in every society". That is a capitalist concept.

As I pointed out, even the leader in a Communist state has the same class as the lowest class - the peasants. But the point is, if you have peasants then it is not really a Communist state, better called a Socialist state tending towards the ideal of Communism. You should not expect to have the same rights even before the law in a Capitalist state, even if the law claims otherwise.

[quote author=ekt_bear link=topic=735658.msg8929482#msg8929482 date=1313432001]And how does capitalism violate bolded? Nobody is better than anyone else before the eyes of the law where I live. Just some are wealthier than others. No hereditary monarchs, titles, etc.[/quote]So in your opinion, even with some people wealthier than others you don't already see classification? What do you think Upper Class, Middle Class, Lower Class refers to? You actually think capitalist states see people as equal? No where is there a clear distinction of classes than the Court of Law; in a capitalist state, justice is commensurate to how much you can pay for it. You can be very innocent, but not being able to afford a good lawyer could make you very guilty. That is not equality.

[quote author=ekt_bear link=topic=735658.msg8929194#msg8929194 date=1313429066]I also don't understand this philosophy of having everyone be equal.[/quote]I don't think it is about "people being equal" but rather "people are CONSIDERED equal". Basically what that means is there is no class, and therefore no prejudices or favorites. The leader is on the same class as any peasant. But of course this is Utopian. This is an idealized concept. But due to the fact that human beings are supposed to make this happen, it cannot happen.

The idea is a capitalist state should strive towards achieving the "ideal" of Communism, by passing through the phase of Socialism. Therefore Socialism is the intermediate state of this progression, since it has characteristics of Communism and Capitalism.

The main problem with Communism (actually Socialism - there is a reason it's USSR and not USCR) was that it was hijacked by a bunch of psychopaths in the first real trial (Russia) and they gave it a bad name, and of course due to human fallibility it became a farce. Indeed Communism can never truly exist, but you can only tend towards it.

Also, many countries including the UK and several countries in Europe operate a combination of Capitalism and Socialism. Why else do you think you have "Free Health Care" if not for a Socialist ideal?

I hope all of you commenting know the difference between Communism and Socialism.

In most cases, we have Socialist states and not Communist states (such as China).

http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm

What is the difference between socialism and communism?

Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).

The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.

Obviously, before it can be achieved, production must reach undreamed of heights—to satisfy everyone’s needs there must be the greatest of plenty of everything. In addition, there must have developed a change in the attitude of people toward work—instead of working because they have to, people will work because they want to, both out of a sense of responsibility to society and because work satisfies a felt need in their own lives.

Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism.

It must not be assumed, from the distinction between socialism and communism, that the political parties all over the world which call themselves Socialist advocate socialism, while those which call themselves Communist advocate communism. That is not the case. Since the immediate successor to capitalism can only be socialism, the Communist parties,-like the Socialist parties, have as their goal the establishment of socialism.

Are there, then, no differences between the Socialist and Communist parties? Yes, there are.

The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.

The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.

The attitude of both parties toward the Soviet Union grows directly out of their approach to this problem. Generally speaking, Communist parties praise the Soviet Union; Socialist parties denounce it in varying degrees. For the Communists, the Soviet Union merits the applause of all true believers in socialism because it has transformed the socialist dream into a reality; for the Socialists, the Soviet Union deserves only condemnation because it has not built socialism at all—at least not the socialism they dreamed of.

Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before.

There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are.

Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.g. your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private property, e.g. your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies.

More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for oppression and exploitation. That’s socialism.

More reading here:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_socialism_and_communism

Modern socialist parties tend to believe in a strong, centralised, welfare state, but they fall very short of communism, in that they support the right of individuals to own private capital.

That is perhaps the most important difference.

LOL. Can you have a Police State without a Police Force? Can a Police State have the "Head Quarters of the Police Force" bombed? Do you know what a "Police State" means?

dinggle:
with all the decent men in Naija all she saw was a used man

And who says any decent man would want her? How decent is she?

And for those who think this saga justifies their warped thinking of Nigerian men, they call it sour-grapes. If your mind is screwed, it's your fault. I doubt that Nigerian men will miss females with several screws loose, so indeed go for non-Nigerians and keep our gene pool clean. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

MeandSum:
So you think I made that up?

No you didn't. You are just one of those sheep who simply repeat illogical statements ignorant people make while trying to be prove they are learned or authoritative. You should check your sources. From the moment I first saw that quote, I knew it could not come from ANY scientist. And I was right.

MeandSum:
according to okada_man
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Anybody who knows how the mind of a scientist works will know Abert Einstein will never say such a thing. This actually is slander.

Since there is already an escape - a waiver from the Minister of Education - I don't know what purpose the bill will serve. The Minister will get rich from bribes. And we will have another racket.

. . . and they think these robbers can't rob at any time? What stops them from robbing in the day time?

[quote author=My-Key link=topic=727224.msg8864953#msg8864953 date=1312584348]Which New York is that you lived in where all Italians are Mobsters and Jews have "an acumen for accounting and business"[/quote]You asked if Italians and Jews still lived in ghettos which was where I said they were in the earlier 20th century, and I answered your silly question explaining how they did it. Most people who can read English can figure I was referring to the early 20th Century when they were STILL in the ghetto, especially when I mentioned The Prohibition Era. So where did I mention that the Jews and Italians are STILL bootleggers especially since Prohibition has long been over? And did I not mention they laundered their money into legit businesses?

Now I have to explain every single response to this brain-damaged mo.ro.n. See, it is obvious you have a serious mental problem and I will suggest you allow serious people respond to this thread. Really. Take a break and go find a psychiatrist.

[quote author=My-Key link=topic=727224.msg8864953#msg8864953 date=1312584348]Did you bother to even read those books that I had recommended? You should, mate.[/quote]Dude, I didn't even read half of your gibberish to have noticed you mentioned any books. Again, take my previous advise. Have a good life.

On a final note, for the self-loather you can say I am a decade ahead of you, as I took the stance of a self-loather to understand the factors behind having to leave my land just to have a better life. I was bitter. And it took me 4 years to get the answer as each piece in the lock clicked into place. I am merely trying to fast-track your journey, or you can spend more time figuring it out.

[quote author=okada_man link=topic=727224.msg8863789#msg8863789 date=1312572299]We are still missing the point, corruption is part of it, but not the main issue. Look deeper and more inwards, corruption, greed, e.t.c are human vices, they are not inherently African, they manifest as symptoms of a deeper Nigerian malaise.[/quote]I always laugh when America points at Nigeria's corruption. We learnt from the best. Only a fool doesn't know the depth of corruption in the US. What keeps them running is how well organized they've managed to be. Of course if they are sabotaged like Nigeria was (and still is), they'd be a mess right now. You cannot aid the worst elements in a country into becoming the rulers and then point at the same country and say they are collectively re.tard.ed.

[quote author=okada_man link=topic=727224.msg8863764#msg8863764 date=1312572057]Any takers on how to forge a common national ideology?[/quote]That only happens when you show you are ready to lay down your life for that ideology. An ideology can just be a collection of words on a piece of paper and uttered until you are asked to "walk the walk" . That's essentially how the ideology of the United States was cemented through the American Revolution and independence from England. You want freedom? Well, then fight for it!

Unfortunately for Haiti, being the only black nation to gain independence by revolt (and the only successful revolt of slaves), they were immediately embargoed, and bogged down by a different form of slavery, and were never allowed to achieve their potential. The latest events are merely the result of centuries of decay. Start the analysis from the roots, and don't just jump into the middle.

nolongTing:
I can see the problem - corruption from the start!

He paid for that with his life, being the most obvious corrupt government functionary, in a sad event that culminated in the Nigerian Civil War.

* I know about European history  because I went to school in the Netherlands for post-graduate study.
* I am sure you've never been to New York, have you? well, lemme school you.

Clear symptoms of Narcissistic personality disorder. Any shrinks in the house, to help this "na me first go to school for my family" idi.iot?

Self-loathing? Check!

NPD is considered to result from a person's belief that they are flawed in a way that makes them fundamentally unacceptable to others.[8] This belief is held below the person's conscious awareness; such a person would, if questioned, typically deny thinking such a thing. In order to protect themselves against the intolerably painful rejection and isolation that (they imagine) would follow if others recognised their (perceived) defective nature, such people make strong attempts to control others’ views of them and behavior towards them.

nolongTing:
I think that oyinbo guy should pay you for all this free education 

To be honest, I don't expect the self-adulator to be educated. Nothing I write up there will sink in. He not only suffers from delusions of grandeur and superiority complex (after all he has a PGD from the Netherlands), he is unteachable. I am only writing for the benefit of those with an open mind coming to this thread to read. My advice to him would be to go collect his school fees back if all he learnt in school was self-loathing and to think like a Boer (why not come to Nigeria to effect Apartheid?).

[quote author=My-Key link=topic=727224.msg8861531#msg8861531 date=1312554187]You are hilarious, old chap!! So now I am White-hehehehehehe, so what makes you say that? Because I can string along a sentence without sounding ridiculous? Because I know a lot about European history? It seems that, according to you, it’s only whites who possess the “magic” of logic and reason. Lol, Who is the self-hater now, me or you? Well, to answer your narrow-minded little brain, I am not white or even mixed race. I am just allergic to ignorance and inanity. I know about European history  because I went to school in the Netherlands for post-graduate study.[/quote]LOL. Look at this mo.r.on. I can just imagine this fool preening because I suspect he's white. Where in my post did I suggest that you are white because you know about European history? What do you know about European history that I don't know even better? Monkey. I indicated why I suggested this dyslexic cretin  is white (because he referred to me as "nigger" and he went off on a tangent of self-adulation. Jezuz, some mothers do have them. I don't remotely care whether you are a white monkey or green, or where you schooled. LOL @ post-graduate study in Netherlands. And so? LMAO.

[quote author=My-Key link=topic=727224.msg8861531#msg8861531 date=1312554187] Why is Haiti so bone crushingly poor 500 years after her liberation from slavery? Why is Jamaica and most of the Caribbean poor? How about black Colombia and the favelas of Brazil? Why is the Bronx in New York and Peckham in London poor? Are Africans pre-destined for misery?[/quote]Now see the silly questions he's asking. Why did you also have Italians and Jews in the ghettos of New York in the early 20th century? Why do discriminated and down-trodden people end up in the ghetto? Is that a rhetoric question, since the answer is already in the question?

Anybody who doesn't know why Haiti is still poor after 500 years does not even need to be noticed. Continue basking in your own ignorance and self-adulation.

For the more info on Haiti's debt, those who need to know more should read these:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/relief-and-reconstruction-watch/france-is-not-paying-back-what-it-owes-haiti-after-all

Media reports that France would pay back an historic debt – essentially a ransom that it demanded in order for Haiti to have international diplomatic and economic recognition – in order to aid Haiti’s earthquake recovery were revealed to be a hoax. Embarrassed by the reports, which came out as France enjoyed its national holiday of Bastille Day, the French government has said it is looking into legal action against the perpetrators.

But the question should be why doesn't France make this restitution? In the Twenty First Century, it is difficult to argue that this is a legitimate debt that Haiti owed France, rather than economic punishment for Haiti's achievement of liberty. Imagine if all of Europe had shunned the newly born United States of America in 1784 upon its successful revolution, and that Britain had demanded an exorbitant sum from the US in order for it to have diplomatic recognition and be able to trade with other nations. Imagine if the sum were so large, and the U.S. were so damaged by the war, that it did not finish paying off Britain until 122 years later – which is how long it took Haiti to finally make its last payment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_debt_of_Haiti

Haiti’s legacy of debt began shortly after gaining independence from France in 1804. In 1825, France, with warships at the ready, demanded Haiti compensate France for its loss of men and slave colony. In exchange for French recognition of Haiti as a sovereign republic, France demanded payment of 150 million francs (modern equivalent of $21 billion).[1] In 1838, France agreed to reduce the debt to 60 million francs to be paid over a period of 30 years.[2] In 1883, Haiti made the final payment

Though I must say the date 1883 may not be quite accurate.

And this is quite a good article:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Haiti/White_Curse.html

And even more:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/01/14/why-haitis-earthquake-is-frances-problem.html

In fact the whole Internet is full of articles on this matter. Even the blind cannot miss knowing this injustice against Haiti, except for self-loathers and fools who already have their minds made up. Oh, and those who have a post-graduate degree from Holland LMAO!

nolongTing:
First of all the Chinese elite rejected western culture and adapted their unique brand of communism.

Which was exactly what our own visionary leaders were doing in the 60s as we got off the starting block. They had to embrace socialist ideas as that was the only way to propel us forward. The American type capitalism in our budding years would have been a setback as quite a few would have gotten extremely rich while the rest wallow in poverty. There was need to uniform development. That was the idea behind the "Free Education" policy of Western Nigeria. We are still reaping the benefits of that policy till this day. But they were labelled Communists by the CIA and the rest of the West and "quarantined".

Now imagine countries where there is synergy, and no tribal sentiments. Imagine Awolowo was the leader of an Odua Republic. I doubt he could be framed for treason, especially since he would be the unquestionable leader. The people will follow him knowing all he does is for our collective good. But in Nigeria you had forces like the Sardauna as an ally of the Brits. Awolowo's political career and Nigeria were already bo.o.by-trapped from the start. A house divided is already fallen. And if by any chance Awolowo was killed, there would be a long list of his disciples to continue his vision. Continuity. Knowing this, foreign meddlers like the CIA would have simply become spectators since their strategies would have been ineffective. A great leader without synergy can never realize very much, and yes we had great leaders.

You cannot just skip to the middle of a movie without watching it from the beginning to get a good grasp. Making reference to our "collective greed" is exactly that. That came much later, after the decades of sabotage. We started well, but were pulled down. All we have to do is get up and continue the race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Nkrumah

Nkrumah attempted to rapidly industrialize Ghana's economy. He reasoned that if Ghana escaped the colonial trade system by reducing dependence on foreign capital, technology, and material goods, it could become truly independent. However, overspending on capital projects caused the country to be driven deeply into debt—estimated as much as $1 billion USD by the time he was ousted in 1966.

We also had visionary leaders trying to develop our countries at the time Singapore and the rest were starting off. Nkrumah was on the right path of industrialization but he needed aid. You can read the below on how much aid he got from the West.

"The plotters are keeping us briefed," he noted, "and the State Department thinks we're more on the inside than the British. While we're not directly involved (I'm told), we and other Western countries (including France) have been helping to set up the situation by ignoring Nkrumah's pleas for economic aid. All in all, it looks good."

You can imagine what his vision would have done to Ghana had he succeeded; dependence on imports from Europe and America (and even Asia) would have vanished. I don't quite think our overlords would have slept much at that thought.

And oh, while that plot was going on, the most visionary leader in Nigeria at the time was languishing in jail for trumped up charges. Not long before, Lumumba had been murdered. And all these were going on as the Asian Tigers were getting off the starting block just as we were. Connect the dots. Conspiracy theory? Please remove the "theory". It was a conspiracy, pure and simple.

[quote author=My-Key link=topic=727224.msg8858880#msg8858880 date=1312530504]So, in your imaginary world, the Marshall plan that followed WW2 was not "aid"?
An evil conspiracy? Nigger please!!!![/quote]Of course history is imaginary when you don't know it or learn from it. Here is a list of progressive leaders who were not allowed to contribute as much because of course they wouldn't serve the master's interests:

Patrice Lumumba - outright murdered. This I have already highlighted.
Obafemi Awolowo - framed for treason. The British head of the "Nigerian Army" eventually owned up.
Kwame Nkrumah - ousted via CIA involvement. For more check here http://www.seeingblack.com/x060702/nkrumah.shtml

The link on Nkrumah has this:

"The plotters are keeping us briefed," he noted, "and the State Department thinks we're more on the inside than the British. While we're not directly involved (I'm told), we and other Western countries (including France) have been helping to set up the situation by ignoring Nkrumah's pleas for economic aid. All in all, it looks good."

Was that the aid you talk about? In Africa, aid cannot be provided to a progressive leader who has the interests of his people at heart. It is only provided to despots and thieves. If you don't know how to read, I repeat (hoping you catch it even if I have to repeat a few more times), "was the 'aid' given to Africa disbursed as it was to Europe and Asia"?

The list goes on but I think I have made my point. But then you don't see them. You would rather be asking where our own equivalent of some leaders are, when all the information you need is right in front of you.

"Nigger"? Is that a Freudian slip? Your white singlet (that was peeking a bit from onset) and white thong is to showing from under your fake and torn black adornment. I'm sure you feel white don't you (that's not if you are actually white)? Kindly take a walk, Uncle Tom.

[quote author=My-Key link=topic=727224.msg8857545#msg8857545 date=1312501727]Yet more indolence,[/quote]You have been the eternally indolent one who started off with the silly "all Somalia is one 'tribe' talk. And you strike again.

What dodgy aid are you referring to? Will any sensible person give out aid if he knew it was all like throwing water in a basket, or maybe it's nothing compared to what they gain by continuing to ensure Africa never stands up especially when you know it all ends up in the wrong hands and is never used for development? Was that how they disbursed aid to Europe? Their "aid" is nothing but payouts to their cronies for their cooperation. No more.

Again reaching out to the Lumumba example,  which would have benefited Congo more for instance - their poisoned chalice aka aid or the nationalization of the mines as he intended, which got them scared shitless? They very well know the aid they throw in the direction of Africa is of no use and they are perfectly satisfied it is as it is. So if for instance you were my guardian, and I have come of age, and I tell you I want to work and earn a living; it makes sense for you to rather give out some money to a dubious uncle to dash me as stipends than allow me to find a job and be useful so that I can sustain myself, and fully knowing the nature of that uncle of mine since you (the guardian) had used the dubious uncle on occasion for your dirty work (who also happens to be a thief and supplies you with a steady stream of stolen goods)? Will I not starve to death?

And of course they org.asm on how well it works out when self-loathers like you say "Oh they gave us aid and we can't do anything with it. we are useless."

[quote author=My-Key link=topic=727224.msg8857059#msg8857059 date=1312495065]Yet, by the 1950's the European and Japanese"economic miracle" was well under way-a mere ten years after such horrible suffering.

Has any African country gone through such hardships? In the well narrated doldrums of African existence, we have created a

myth in which we have been singled out for the greatest suffering and the most unendurable oppression in the history of the world. Yet, blessed with a clement climate, fertile soil and abundant natural resources, almost all our woes are self-inflicted.[/quote]You forgot to mention how all those crumbled societies were provided funds to rebuild (or were the funds for rebuilding conjured out of non-existent trade?); the equivalent of which would be to pay all the African countries back for the centuries of looting.

[quote author=My-Key link=topic=727224.msg8852760#msg8852760 date=1312457040]It would intrest you to know that Belgium has surpassed Iraq as the country that has gone the longest without a Government http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/18/belgium-marks-250-days-no-government all because of foolish 'tribalism" between the Vlaams (Flemish) and the Walloons.

Yet, Belgium works very well. The economy is humming along nicely, there is no violence, poverty or disease. Actually, Belgium is one of the richest countries on earth (and the chocolates around Bruxelles's Grote Markt are delicious!!).[/quote]So you expect all the loot of centuries to disappear in a twinkle? The richest countries in the world (apart from Switzerland. . .well. . . Switzerland benefited indirectly) have their foundation on all the loot from conquered, or should we say "colonized" nations. All of that won't vamoose suddenly. Nigeria was without a president for several months; what was affected? That just goes to show that a government might not be so useful after all.

ALL of the European ethnic groups have had series of wars lasting ages even before Jesus was born, and still had one ending just in 1945 so they should have developed mutual respect for one another, and understanding. You've had Saxons, Gauls (Francs et cetera), Vandals and Huns all who were interestingly collectively referred to as Barbarians by the Romans. They were all a savage marauding group and they were so destructive that they brought the "Dark Ages" with them, to the point that were it not for the Arab scholars most of the Philosophy of the Greeks and Romans would have vanished. Yet these are the same people we refer to as "The Civilized World" today in countries like Germany (Saxons and Vandals), France (Gauls), et cetera. So what does this have to do with IQ? If anything it is all about brutality.

But being of the same "tribe" does not necessary result in synergy. And various "tribes" can achieve that synergy over a long time as they develop understanding and respect for one another just as the Barbarians did.

[quote author=My-Key link=topic=727224.msg8852577#msg8852577 date=1312455490]Let's leave the straw man's argument for now and concentrate on the main point, all right?[/quote]And you should have done that rather than come in here to condescendingly refer to points raised as "lazy arguments" and then ignorantly say "Somalia is one tribe". That is "acting learned", "my friend".

[quote author=My-Key link=topic=727224.msg8852157#msg8852157 date=1312452296]Somalis are one tribe, my friend. Clan-ism. Read wider than Wikipedia, buddy,[/quote]And what is the difference between tribes and clans? Maybe my actually reading widely more than you do made me know they are the same. Or maybe English is foreign to you?

You can follow the links or grab a dictionary and stop acting so learned when you are not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clan

a group of families or households, as among the Scottish Highlanders, the heads of which claim descent from a common ancestor: the Mackenzie clan.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tribe

any aggregate of people united by ties of descent from a common ancestor, community of customs and traditions, adherence to the same leaders, etc.

[quote author=My-Key link=topic=727224.msg8852011#msg8852011 date=1312450879]All lazy arguments.

Tribalism has no place in this. Otherwise, Somalia, with her one tribe, one culture and one religion would be the epitome of prosperity.[/quote]It seems you are lazy with digging up facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War

The Somali Civil War is an ongoing civil war taking place in Somalia. The conflict, which began in 1991, has caused destabilisation throughout the country, with the current phase of the conflict seeing the Somali government losing substantial control of the state to rebel forces. [size=24pt]The unrest initially consisted of a series of clashes between various tribalist factions[/size], but since the mid-2000s took a militant Islamist tone.