What kinda pisses me off about that architecture in Africa Twitter thread is that it primarily focuses on European definitions of what “good” architecture is—permanent, typically stone based designed structures that fit a specific sort of aesthetic that can be deemed such. The Somalia section of it in specific is just Italian colonial architecture that has nothing to do with ethnic Somalis but instead an architecture style that was introduced by an imperial force that hardly considered them humans. As to how Somali tent making, which is traditionally very complicated, is not seen as a form of architecture worth talking about is beyond me. I mean even the Smithsonian has a replica of a Somali tent home:
How is this not architecture! It’s a dwelling! It has a planned structure and yes it’s mobile, and yes it can be taken apart when need be but it’s still architecture even if not in the traditional sense. It’s still a complex and designed structure, this isn’t just some random thing people do. And this tent could’ve been used for the majority of someone’s lifetime and yet have been all around the easternmost part of the Horn of Africa along with them. This specific type of dwelling in itself isn’t just Somali but it’s shared by pastoralists going into even Southeast Africa (primarily those speaking Khoe languages) so when we do this whole national architecture thing in Africa we’re both ignoring the various facets and diversity of architecture multiple different ethnic groups have but also the shared history of some constructions that span far beyond drawn up borders.
It’s like people only talk about Africa having anything noteworthy if it’s being used to counter Westerners with parameters of success and worth that they themselves imposed—and it’s done in the dumbest fashion possible.