Many omanies were killed among other muslim nationalities.


Part 1


Part 2

I heard about it many times
Poor them :no:

wow.... :( :(

after the omanies made for them a better country
they gave them this present... how shamefull..

....................

^ he's talking about Africans & the Omanis in Africa, not omanis in oman. You lost him there, son :P.

wow.... :( :(

after the omanies made for them a better country
they gave them this present... how shamefull..

No body like his country to be occupied.
What we did it was wrong; I do apologize to all Zanzibar.

No body like his country to be occupied.
What we did it was wrong; I do apologize to all Zanzibar.

Wow!

I don't entirely agree, but I have to congratulate HairlyMan on trying to be consistent.

I really respect that.

***

I think the truth is somewhere in between.

Occupiers and imperialists sometimes bring great benefits. Sometimes they are accepted with relative pleasure when they bring peace and wealth and other advantages. Sometimes they are accepted because the people are ruled by others whom they consider worse...

So you have to go case by case.

And in modern times, people are sort of trained to be totally negative toward all "occupiers" and "imperialists".

It's clear that--right or wrong--at the time of independence most of the black Zanzibaris felt that they were dominated by their Arab rulers and they didn't like them.

But it's a shame that innocent people suffered and were killed by such horrible brutality.

its a real tragic :(

No body like his country to be occupied.
What we did it was wrong; I do apologize to all Zanzibar.

Zanzibar was no one's country .. the first people lived in the island were said to be perisians .. the island was a deserted one.. Omanis and yemenis then went there for business before said bin sultan occupy it.

I think Hairly Man would say a country belongs to its inhabitants.

The vast majority of the inhabitants of Zanzibar were black Africans brought from the mainland by Arabs who ruled them and who the natives felt as foreigners.

That's why there was a revolt!

There is a similar story in the independence of Haiti. The black slaves threw the Europeans out and started their own country.

Zanzibar was no one's country .. the first people lived in the island were said to be perisians .. the island was a deserted one.. Omanis and yemenis then went there for business before said bin sultan occupy it.

I may agree with you but geographical it is African

I think Hairly Man would say a country belongs to its inhabitants.

The vast majority of the inhabitants of Zanzibar were black Africans brought from the mainland by Arabs who ruled them and who the natives felt as foreigners.

That's why there was a revolt!

There is a similar story in the independence of Haiti. The black slaves threw the Europeans out and started their own country.

The inhabitants are the people who first were on the land. If people became a majority for a reason or another, it doesnt make it thier right to kill the rest of the people because of that.

Yes its in Africa, so is mauratius .. I dont see the africans in mauratius over throwing the indians and chineese because its thier land.

Omanies didnt went there by the sword
they reached their by trading
anyways the omany people was good
a respected people
so the people their in zanzibar loved them
by their personalities
not by the sword

and by the way the first three Omany newspapers
was published in zanzibar
the Omanies made good thing their..
but like what i heard in the video
the forginers told the african zazibary people
that these Omanies here to control ur country
when that was not tru

TIS = This Is Africa ...

and Hairy Man,, who are you to apologize to all zanzibar? cuz no one give a damn rat about ur apology... and Omanis in Zanzibar didn't do anything wrong, Zanzibar was one of the most civilized countries in africa during the Omanis rule of the Island and look at its miserable situation now, thanks to the africans.

but what is pittyful is that some real Arab Omanis are left there while some Africans were brought to Oman by some Omanis, thats unfortunate.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

exactly :)

Princess
Correct me if I am wrong!

Omanis put their feet on Zanzibar in the time of El-Ya3aribah when they were asked by the local people to oust the Portuguese.

Imam Sultan appointed a Wali from Al-Mazrooi family. By the time, Al-Mazrooi family ruled Zanzibar independently until they were overthrown by Sultan Said bin Sultan who sized power in Oman in 1804 if my memory is retentive enough. Then Omanis ruled Zanzibar until the Revolution in 1964.
Before the Omanis, Zanzibar was inhabited by indigenous Africans and Hatharimah (from Hathramoot, Yemen).

Was the Omani occupation good for Zanzibar?

I think, if Omanis were not there, things would never be any better. Sultan Said moved the capital from Muscat to Zanzibar and he introduced many things to that island. He deserves the tribute for making the island a main exporter of many produces especially spices and it was the main commercial port on the East African cost. If not Omanis, it would be the British and the German who would have ripped it off like they did in the other African countries.

But we got to listen to the Zanzibaris, they say that Omanis enslaved the Africans. Omanis reply to the claim that those slaves were offered for sale by the chiefs of their tribes. The argue that the complain should start with the sellers not with the buyers.

Here is a good documentary by Al-Jazeera on Zanzibar...

Its main interview is in English, (translated),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCyPll_PQb0&feature=related

The inhabitants are the people who first were on the land. If people became a majority for a reason or another, it doesnt make it thier right to kill the rest of the people because of that.

Yes its in Africa, so is mauratius .. I dont see the africans in mauratius over throwing the indians and chineese because its thier land.

Look:

I am not an opponent of Omani imperialism in Zanzibar. No doubt it had its benefits.

No: the inhabitants are not the people who were "first on the land." That is not the definition of inhabitants.

Inhabitants are the people who live there. That's what inhabitants are.

I never said that people have a right to kill people because they are a majority.

I just pointed out that the vast majority of the people of Zanzibar were black Africans. They didn't want to be ruled by Arabic speaking people who seemed to them to be foreigners.

Were they right? Who knows? Opinions may differ. Personally, I am quite sympathetic to the Arabs in this case.

Were the Africans right to slaughter the people who they considered their oppressors? Certainly not.

Should the tiny minority of Arabs have had a right to rule over people who didn't want them to rule? Who knows. But it's not ridiculous to say, No.

But if you want to restore the map of the world to "the people who were first in a place" it would look completely different from the way it does today on every single continent. And of course, in most places it would be empty since the original inhabitants are either unknown or have disappeared from the face of the earth.

^^ but who are u to talk on their behalf and say that they were not happy to be ruled by the Arabs? are you one of the African Zanzibaris? did you live under the rule of the Arabs in those days? please answer this

Princess
Omanis put their feet on Zanzibar in the time of El-Ya3aribah when they were asked by the local people to oust the Portuguese.

Imam Sultan appointed a Wali from Al-Mazrooi family. By the time, Al-Mazrooi family ruled Zanzibar independently until they were overthrown by Sultan Said bin Sultan who sized power in Oman in 1804 if my memory is retentive enough. Then Omanis ruled Zanzibar until the Revolution in 1964.
Before the Omanis, Zanzibar was inhabited by indigenous Africans and Hatharimah (from Hathramoot, Yemen).


I cant correct you, I know so little about Zanzibar's history. But after reading a breif history of Sayyis Said bin Sultan's occupaying of Zanzibar, I remmber reading something about Al Mazarooi family being there before .. but as mechants. They didnt have a proper rule there.

My uncle is writing a book about Zanzibar and its history, and once I was discussing the same issue .. he corrected me that the persians were first to set foot in a deserted Island of Zanzibar. Africans were not there. Africans came to the pic through slaves trade which every society in the world was involved in it at that time and Omanis were no exception. I dont see why this issue is highlighted whenever the issue of zanzibar comes up .. the revloution did not come to "free" slaves because many were freed even before .. it came because Africans claimed that the land is theirs just because it was in Africa.. but its far from reality.

But if you want to restore the map of the world to "the people who were first in a place" it would look completely different from the way it does today on every single continent. And of course, in most places it would be empty since the original inhabitants are either unknown or have disappeared from the face of the earth.

I never said that .. I will be contradicting myself if I said that .. what I am saying is, Africans had no right to take the land of Zanzibar the way they did .. it doesnt belong to them ONLY .. the revloution came out as if the people who were there (they were Arabs, Indians, Chineese, perisans..etc) have no right to the place.

Zanzibar history from standard sources shows this:

1. Various visitors from Africa til about AD 1000.

2. AD 1000 to 11 or 1200-- Native Africans arrive and settle.

3. AD 11 or 1200 til 1505--Persian and Yemeni traders settle and intermix with the native population.

4. 1505 til 1698--Portuguese rule and some settlement and intermixture.

5. 1698 til 1890--rule by Oman Sultans.

6. 1890 til 10 December 1963--rule by Sultans under the British protectorate.

7. 10 December 1963 to 12 January 1964--Independence under the Sultan.

8. 12 January 1964 to 26 April 1964--Independence under Zanzibar Revolutionary Government.

9. 26 April 1964 til present--Federated with Tanganyika to form Tanzania.

^^ but who are u to talk on their behalf and say that they were not happy to be ruled by the Arabs? are you one of hte African Zanzibaris? did you live under the rule of the Arabs in those days? please answer this

How do you know that both the Arabs and the Africans didn't prefer to keep being ruled by the British?

I am not speaking on their behalf. I am simply giving the normal historical understanding.

There was a revolution against Arab rule by the natives. They established their independence. It appeared to have wide popular support since large numbers of people participated in the horrible killings that occurred afterward.

Perhaps the historians are all wrong and they wanted to be ruled by Arabs.

But the normal thing is as Hairly Man points out: people prefer to rule themselves.

I am not a supporter of the massacres, Good God! They were essentially genocide. I condemn them.

If the Zanzibaris want to bring back and Arab Sultan and turn their government over to him, God bless them! I have zero objection. If he is like your Sultan, they should be very happy indeed.

I never said that .. I will be contradicting myself if I said that .. what I am saying is, Africans had no right to take the land of Zanzibar the way they did .. it doesnt belong to them ONLY .. the revloution came out as if the people who were there (they were Arabs, Indians, Chineese, perisans..etc) have no right to the place.

Africans might have had the right to take the land. But why did Arabs have a right to rule them?

How do you determine who has the right to rule a land?

Most people today think it should be what they majority of the people want.

Who knows? Maybe the majority wanted to be ruled by Arabs and not their own people. But that would be very unusual in world history.

Please don't misunderstand: I don't like the dreadful massacres. And I am admirer or Omani culture and history. Including even Omani imperialism.

BUT: I also don't believe in "Perfect Imperialism that Made Everybody Happy." There were undoubtedly many dark pages in Omani domination of Zanzibar...there were light pages too.

^ what I think is that we shouldn't wait for them to ask us to rule them, I think we should get it back from them and rule them whether they like it or not.. :) i really do think that.

^ what I think is that we shouldn't wait for them to ask us to rule them, I think we should get it back from them and rule them whether they like it or not.. :) i really do think that.

Give it a shot, I don't mind! :)

But maybe they will... ;)

^^ I hope they will, cuz it will be legal in my opinion to take revenge then ;)

I cant correct you, I know so little about Zanzibar's history. But after reading a breif history of Sayyis Said bin Sultan's occupaying of Zanzibar, I remmber reading something about Al Mazarooi family being there before .. but as mechants. They didnt have a proper rule there.

My uncle is writing a book about Zanzibar and its history, and once I was discussing the same issue .. he corrected me that the persians were first to set foot in a deserted Island of Zanzibar. Africans were not there. Africans came to the pic through slaves trade which every society in the world was involved in it at that time and Omanis were no exception. I dont see why this issue is highlighted whenever the issue of zanzibar comes up .. the revloution did not come to "free" slaves because many were freed even before .. it came because Africans claimed that the land is theirs just because it was in Africa.. but its far from reality.

See AP
There has to be a first occupant in a land…

Oman was first occupied by Samah bin Luai who came with his tribe from Al-Hijaz that is before Malik bin Faham… this fact doesn’t give any right whatsoever to the Persians who occupied Oman before Malik bin FAham came to Oman…

It has already been set as an establish community…although I doubt the Persian were the first occupant of the island,

I think Sultan Said made Zanzibar a favour… Al-Mazrooi was the first Wali set by a Yarubi Imam and then Al-Mazrooi family sized the ruling of Zanzibar until Sultan Said’s time.

But Omanis occupied the place, and there were people who called for help to the Yarubi imam before Sultan said.

The revolution wasn’t about freeing slaves, I agree and it was a movement of the mob just like the ongoing killing in the rest of Africa, and I hope Jack will devote a little of his research time to find a correlation for the killing in Africa.

Just one comment: It's not quite correct to say it was a "massacre of Muslims". Many of those carrying out the attacks were also Muslims. It was a massacre of Arabs, or those perceived to be related to Arab "colonisers".

It was certinaly a terrible event...I think we all know families who lost people, or who suffered great hardship around that time.

Such is history.

Africans might have had the right to take the land. But why did Arabs have a right to rule them?

How do you determine who has the right to rule a land?

Most people today think it should be what they majority of the people want.

Who knows? Maybe the majority wanted to be ruled by Arabs and not their own people. But that would be very unusual in world history.

Please don't misunderstand: I don't like the dreadful massacres. And I am admirer or Omani culture and history. Including even Omani imperialism.

BUT: I also don't believe in "Perfect Imperialism that Made Everybody Happy." There were undoubtedly many dark pages in Omani domination of Zanzibar...there were light pages too.

Its either I am not understanding you, or you are not understanding me.

I am not saying the sultans had to continue rule Zanzibar .. I dont care who rules zanzibar today .. if they want democracy, well good for them (even though unfourtountly its working for them). I am just saying, just because they are majority, it doesnt give them the right to overthrow the government and kill everyone who is "different" than they are. The beleived Africans should rule, the throwing should have happened to the government ONLY not the people! What they did was, they overthrowed the government and killed everyone who isnt African. Its like they were saying, Zazibar belongs to Africans and only Africans .. the others there are just temporary residents.
Omanis are lucky they maintained relationship with thier main land even after the seperations of the two states. Others didint have that advantage and wither remained there or migrated to somewhere else.

what really happened in Zanzibar was a brutal massacre , but there was a reason behind that hatred which made the locals join Okeello's soldiers from the mainland. We have to bear in mind that centuries of slavery and abuse by Omani Zanzibaris has provoked at the end islanders to seek revenge.

Its either I am not understanding you, or you are not understanding me.

I am not saying the sultans had to continue rule Zanzibar .. I dont care who rules zanzibar today .. if they want democracy, well good for them (even though unfourtountly its working for them). I am just saying, just because they are majority, it doesnt give them the right to overthrow the government and kill everyone who is "different" than they are. The beleived Africans should rule, the throwing should have happened to the government ONLY not the people! What they did was, they overthrowed the government and killed everyone who isnt African. Its like they were saying, Zazibar belongs to Africans and only Africans .. the others there are just temporary residents.
Omanis are lucky they maintained relationship with thier main land even after the seperations of the two states. Others didint have that advantage and wither remained there or migrated to somewhere else.

Well, from what you say, I think I agree with you 100%! :)

You know, I wasn't just talking to you. I think there are a variety of ways of looking at this issue.

For sure, you are right that in today's climate, all minority rulers are completely condemned. That's not fair.

As you said on your blog once, there is another side to the story.

I think Hairly Man would say a country belongs to its inhabitants.

The vast majority of the inhabitants of Zanzibar were black Africans brought from the mainland by Arabs who ruled them and who the natives felt as foreigners.

That's why there was a revolt!

There is a similar story in the independence of Haiti. The black slaves threw the Europeans out and started their own country.


Wondered what happened to the Natives who inhabited Haiti because correct me if I am wrong there were Indian tribes all over the Caribbean including those of my ancestors the Taino and there were also the Arawak and the Caribes. I seriously doubt Zanzibar was a complete barren land with no original inhabitants.