Adwa and Abyssinia’s Participation in the Scramble for Africa: Does that have relevance to the ongoing Oromo protests? March 29, 2017Posted by OromianEconomist in Colonizing Structure.
Tags: Adwa, Africa, Ethiopia and Oromia, Ethiopia's colonizing structure and development problems in Oromia and Omo Valley, Invention of Ethiopia: The Making of Dependent Colonial State in Northeast Africa by Bonnie K. Holcomb (Author), Italy, Menelik II, Oromia, Slavery, The colonization of Oromia and the violence against Oromo people, The scramble for Africa
add a comment
Adwa and Abyssinia’s Participation in the Scramble for Africa:
Does that Have Relevance to the Ongoing Oromo Protests?
By Mekuria Bulcha, PhD, Professor
Whenever an Oromo scholar or politician mentions Menelik or his conquest of Oromia, the scathing criticism that meets him or her is that history is irrelevant for the current crisis. They are often advised to stop looking backwards and to focus on the future. Meanwhile, the irony is that in the lead up to and weeks after the 121st anniversary of the Battle of Adwa, many Ethiopian scholars and politicians have been engaged in intense debate about this event. In fact, I am all for a debate about Ethiopian history; however, I was surprised when I read an article written by Teshome Borago entitled “Adwa: When Oromos fought Italy as Abyssinians” published on the Ethiomedia webpage on March 3, 2017. Borago wrote the article to commemorate the anniversary of Ethiopia’s victory over Italian forces at Adwa in 1896. By and large, he talks about the victory of Adwa as an example of unity among the peoples of Ethiopia and calls on the peoples of Ethiopia to keep up that spirit of unity. But, the problem is that he did not stop there; he used the Oromo contribution to the victory at Adwa obliquely as a pretext to question the validity of Oromo grievances voiced by the ongoing protests. He laments the “new generation” Oromos’ failure to appreciate their forefathers’ contributions to the Adwa victory, and for not respecting the spirit of Adwa which was Ethiopian unity. He refers to their protests as an effort made in defense of “tribalism”. My criticism is that, using the victory of Adwa as a point of departure, Borago distorts not only Oromo and Ethiopian history, but also misrepresents the motives of the ongoing Oromo protests. Borago is not the only writer who has been labelling the Oromo struggle for freedom as a manifestation of “tribalism”, or to criticize Oromo views about Menelik and the creation of the Ethiopian state. There are dozens of commentators who, like him, have been distorting Oromo history and demonizing Oromo politics and scholarship. Haile Larebo has been one of the most vocal representatives of this group.
The views which are expressed in both Borago’s article and Larebo’s story about the Battle of Adwa, which was broadcast on March 22, 2017 on Aronios Radio are the points of departure for this article. The purpose of the article is to critically assess the meanings of the Battle of Adwa for the Oromo and other non-Abyssinian peoples who were conquered and forcibly incorporated into the Ethiopian Empire by Menelik. The following questions will guide my discussion: (a) what were the conditions under which the Oromo and the other non-Abyssinian peoples participated in the Battle of Adwa? (b) What “benefits” did they derive from the victory at Adwa? (c) In what ways was the Battle of Adwa a turning point in Abyssinia’s participation in the Scramble for Africa? (d) What was the relationship between the peoples of the south including the Oromo and the Abyssinian state before and after Adwa?
Menelik’s army at Adwa: freemen, gabbars, captives and slaves
As Wendy James has aptly pointed out, “without the contributions of Ethiopia’s southern peoples, whose sweat and blood go unrecorded in Ethiopianist annals, the Battle of Adwa in 1896 might not have been won and Menelik II might not have gone on to build his empire.” Obviously, one of those peoples were the Oromo. I am not denying Oromo contribution to the Ethiopian victory over the Italians at Adwa. My critique concerns the representation of the conditions under which their contribution occurred. I argue that Oromo human and material resources were not “contributed” voluntarily as Borago and Larebo want us to believe. By and large, they were robbed. To start, as Harold Marcus has stated, “Menelik had exploited the south and the south-west to purchase weapons.” He was “indirectly Ethiopia’s greatest slave entrepreneur and received the bulk of the proceeds” from the slave trade. Marcus wrote that being a Christian Menelik was not directly involved in the trade, but “Many slaves were however supplied by him.” The “human merchandize” used in that trade were Oromos and others who were captured his conquest of the south. Pankhurst has also stated that “the supply of slaves was…swollen by large numbers of prisoners captured during Menelik’s southern campaigns.” The evidence is extensive to present in this short article, but it is important to not here that Menelik covered in part the cost of the firearms used at Adwa with revenue from the export of human merchandize.
What is also equally important to understand is that the fighters who marched north carrying those firearms were not all freemen, but also a motley of captives, gabbars and slaves, including thousands of women. Most of them were Oromo, Walaita, Kambata and Gurage and were from territories which were conquered a decade or a few years prior to the Battle of Adwa. They were used not only as fighters, but also providers of the services that made the fighting possible. They were bearers of firearms and supplies; they cooked for the fighters and looked after the horses and mules used by the fighters. In this connection, a remarkable story emerges if we look closely at the case of Walaita which was conquered in 1894 just two years before the Battle. It is also interesting to note that Borago who writes that “several kingdoms volunteered and mobilized from every region in Ethiopia to fight at the Battle of Adwa” claims Walaita ethnicity. According to archival evidence collected by the historian Tsehai Berhane-Selassie, one of the aims of the expedition against Walaita was slave raiding. She noted that it was carried out in order to replenish depleted manpower because of the severe famine of 1889-92, to pay outstanding debts to arms dealers, and to finance the impending war against the Italians. Describing the battle the French business agent Gaston Vanderheym who accompanied Menelik on his campaign against the Walaita, expressed the “crushing effects” of newly acquired guns on the southern conquests as “some kind of infernal hunting were human beings rather than animals served as game” and “where no distinction was made between fighters and civilians.” Prouty notes that according Menelik’s own chronicler, 118,987 Walaita were killed and 18,000 were enslaved. The King of Walaita Tona was wounded and captured and his kingdom was destroyed. Martial de Salviac wrote that the captives were made to march in a single line in front of Menelik who “chose the most robust and had a cross marked on their hands with a sharp object.” In fact, Menelik not only enslaved thousands of Walaita, he also drove 36,000 head of looted cattle all the way to Shawa. Two years later, the captives were used to transport food, weapons, ammunition from Shawa to Adwa in 1896.
The united country called Ethiopia, which according to Larebo and Borago existed centuries before Adwa, is a myth. The fact is that when he turned north to meet the Italians at Adwa, Menelik was in the midst of the conquest of the south. The entire Macha region – the Gibe and Leeqa states – was annexed only in 1886. Arsi was conquered in 1886 and Hararge in 1887. As indicated above, Walaita was conquered in 1894. The sores inflicted by the atrocities committed against the Oromo at Anole and Calanqoo in 1886 and 1887 by the conquering Abyssinian forces were still bleeding. Even Wallo’s conquest in the north was completed in 1878 after years of fierce battles between Menelik (then King of Shawa) and Emperor Yohannes IV on one side and the Wallo Oromo on the other. What is most remarkable is Larebo’s assertion that the Ethiopian people were united from corner to corner at the time of Adwa. In his interview on Radio Atronos, he posits that there was not a single village in Ethiopia which did not send fighters to Adwa. The absurdity of this proposition is that the Gujii and Borana Oromo and more than 80 percent of what is today the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples (SSNP), Gambella, Benishangul, Ogaden were outside the reach of Menelik’s empire. Needless to stress that Larebo’s assertions are not true because the country not only lacked unity, but, geographically, Ethiopia as we know it today did not exist at that point.
Indeed, the Ethiopian empire was defended by the blood and bones of Oromo fighters, but their blood was shed not for love of country as Larebo and others would have us believe. While the Abyssinians were defending their freedom, the Oromo had no freedom to defend against the Italians. They had lost it to the Abyssinians during the preceding decade. Their land was an Abyssinian colony. The “contribution” they were forced to make to the war effort saved the Abyssinians from European colonialism, but it did not help them to regain their own independence. There is no indication that they were beneficiaries of the victory over the Italians. In fact, as I will explain later, their contribution to the victory had reinforced colonial Abyssinian rule which Menelik had imposed on them a decade or two prior to the Battle of Adwa.
Ironically, like the naftanya elite, Borago and Larebo have few sympathetic words for the Oromo and the other conquered peoples of Ethiopia. It seems that they saw nothing wrong or immoral in the atrocities committed against them when they lay claim on Oromo loyalty to Menelik. They want the Oromo to see Menelik as their hero and an icon of their resistance against racism and colonialism. The Oromo admit that their forefathers had fought and defeated the Italian army together with Abyssinians. However, the war was not a joint undertaking, but an Abyssinian war with Italy. The Oromo were used as means to defend Abyssinia’s independence. Few believe Larebo’s repetitious story about Menelik being the defender of the black race against white colonizers. As the Oromo scholar Tsegaye Araarsa has expressed the matter, to call the empire built by Menelik the beacon of black freedom is a blatant “distortion of history intended to galvanize legitimacy for his rule.” It is a deceitful attempt to cleanse the history of the atrocious conquest from the stains of blood with which it was smeared. Given the great harm his conquest had inflicted upon them, one must be contemptuous of the Oromo to expect them to honor Menelik as their hero. I know that there are Oromos who take pride in the valor which their forefathers had shown at Adwa, but I have also seen their pride giving way to bitterness as soon as they discover the “rewards” they had received for their heroic contributions to that victory. Several years ago one of the Oromo admirers of Menelik II sent me a note and a picture of the Oromo cavalry who fought at Adwa.
My friend who is an ardent “pan-Ethiopianist” was exhilarated when he read about the valor of Oromo fighters at the battle of Adwa in a book he came across. In the note he mentioned Fitawrari Gebeyehu as one of the heroes who made the victory at Adwa possible. Gebeyehu died in action leading the troops under his command in the forefront of the battle. However, he felt offended when he reflected on the fact that Gebeyehu’s name is rarely mentioned and his ethnic identity obscured by Ethiopian historiographers. He lamented, “The sad thing however is that Gebeyehu’s father’s name, Gurmu, is never mentioned in the history books. One day we will all be free from this and that type of racism little or big and the real patriots will be celebrated by all Ethiopians.” Gurmu is not a “genuine” Abyssinian name. However, Gebeyehu was not the only Oromo who was denied his social identity in Ethiopian history in that manner. Many Oromos who contributed to the defense of Abyssinia’s or Ethiopia’s independence were treated in that way. Even the ethnic origin of Haile Selassie’s grandfather was concealed. The reason was that the Abyssinian ruling elite were reluctant to recognize Oromos as partners in the making of Abyssinian-cum-Ethiopian history. As Hassen Hussein and Mohammed Ademo have expressed Gebeyehu’s “disappearance from Ethiopian history parallels the erasure of his people’s contributions from the country’s official historiography.” As the two authors have stated, “This is the root of Oromo ambivalence toward Ethiopia: the Oromo are good enough to fight and die for Ethiopia, but not live in it with their full dignity and identity.” This also underpins the lukewarm Oromo attitude toward the history of Adwa.
That the role of Oromo fighters was crucial for Menelik’s victory at Adwa is undeniable, but the victory did not help them as a people in any manner. It is remarkable that Borago and Larebo who come from conquered and marginalized peoples in the south, the Walaita and Hadiya respectively, could miss the cause of the unenthusiastic Oromo feeling toward Ethiopia and “Ethiopiawinnet”. Presenting Oromo forefathers as significant players in defense of the Abyssinian Empire does not change that reality or disprove the fact that the empire was a colonial creation and the Oromo are its colonial subjects. The point is, the Oromo did not fight at Adwa as ethnic Abyssinians or citizens of Abyssinia as Borago and other commentators try to suggest. They fought for their colonizers. They were not the first people to fight a war for their enemies. Colonized peoples had done that throughout history. For example, over 1,355,300 Africans fought for the British in WWII. They did not become Englishmen because of their contributions to British victory in that war. They returned home and struggled for their independence. The Oromo have not been silent subjects because of the victory at the Battle of Adwa. Although their struggle has been sporadic, as reflected in the current uprising, the hope for independence is alive and strong.
Did the Abyssinians participate in the Scramble for Africa?
Teshome Borago is suggesting that a “united Ethiopia” was in place long before Adwa when he says “One has to wonder, how could [did] we win unless a multiethnic Ethiopian nation existed long before the so-called ‘Abyssinian colonization’? How can we defeat a European superpower without sharing a sense of common identity and destiny?” With these rhetorical questions he joins the numerous Habesha politicians and scholars who deny Abyssinia’s participation in the Scramble for Africa in the late nineteenth century. Concerning Abyssinia’s conquest and colonization of the Oromo and the other peoples in the south, the attitude of Habesha politicians’ and scholars’ is like that of climate change deniers. They ignore volumes of historical and scientific evidence that prove the reality of what they deny. However, to answer Borago’s questions, a multi-ethnic Abyssinian state and nation existed for sure long before the Scramble for Africa. Its main ethnic constituents were the Amhara and the Tigrayans with Agaw, Qimant, Falasha and Shinasha ethnicities. Its territorial base was, to a large extent, the current Amhara and Tigray Regional States and parts of highland Eritrea. One sees them as an Ethiopian nation since Abyssinia and Ethiopia often are interchangeably used. In contrast, the Ethiopian nation Borago has in mind did not exist before Adwa and is not a reality even today. The reality Borago will not acknowledge is that in the Horn of Africa, there were nations like the Oromo, the Sidama, the Walaita, the Afar, Somali and the Kaficho that existed parallel to and independent from Abyssinia. The victory at Adwa not only saved Abyssinia from European colonization, it also encouraged Menelik to continue, with renewed vigour, the colonization of the rest of the Oromo territory and the greater part of what is now south and southwest Ethiopia. I will present, below, a summary of evidence gleaned from the works of scholars on Abyssinia’s colonial exploits during the Scramble for African. I will use “imperial ambitions”, “ideology” and “possession of firearms” as guiding themes to identify the parity of Abyssinia’s participation in the Scramble for Africa with that of the European imperialist powers of the day.
Imperial ambitions: The evidence for Abyssinian imperial ambitions is reflected in Menelik’s letter to European heads of state wherein he states “if Powers at a distance come forward to partition Africa between them … I do not intend to be an indifferent spectator.” In the words of Gebru Tareke, impelled by “the appearance of European colonialist in the region”, Menelik “embarked on a much larger scale of colonization in the 1880s” than what had been attempted previously. Bahiru Tafla wrote also that it was “European colonial acquisition in Africa [which] awakened imperialist interest in the minds of the Ethiopian rulers of the late nineteenth century.” The influence of European imperialism on Menelik is articulated further by Elspeth Huxley who figuratively states that “the Abyssinians had caught a severe attack of the prevailing imperialist fever” and they “were the only Africans to join the scramble for Africa.” In his Ethiopia: The Last Frontiers, John Markakis writes that Abyssinia “competed successfully in the imperialist partition of the region [Horn of Africa]. Not a victim but a participant in the ‘scramble’, Ethiopia doubled its territory and population in a burst of expansionist energy, and thereafter proudly styled itself the ‘Ethiopian Empire’. He notes that “the title [‘Empire’] is not a misnomer, since Ethiopia’s rulers governed their new possessions more or less the same way and for similar ends as other imperial powers were doing. The people who took the pride in calling themselves Ethiopians were known also as Abyssinians (Habesha).” He states that “Today’s ruling elite frown at the use of this name because it obstructs their effort to forge an inclusive Ethiopian national identity.”Here, it is interesting to note that the Abyssinian use the term today, particularly in the diaspora, to differentiate themselves from other black peoples. When used as such, it has racial underpinnings as indicated by Hussein and Ademo in their article mentioned above.
Ideology: Asserting the colonial ideological factor in the creation of the Abyssinian empire, the conflict researcher Christian Scherrer notes that “European and Abyssinian colonialism occurred simultaneously, pursued similar interests, albeit from differing socio-economic bases, and this was reinforced by comparable colonial ideologies of the idea of empire and notion of ‘civilizing mission’ and the exploitation of the subjugated peoples.” Writing on the ideological underpinnings of Menelik’s colonial conquests, Gebru Tareke, a historian from the north, has also stated that the Abyssinian ruling elite acted like the white colonial rulers in the rest of Africa. The language they used when describing their colonial subjects did not differ from the language the European colonialists were using. It was a language which was infused with stereotypes, prejudices and paternalism. He adds, “They [the Abyssinian elite] tried much like the European colonisers of their time, to justify the exploitability, and moral validity of occupation.” They “looked upon and treated the indigenous people as backward.” One can add here that stereotypes and ethnic slurs about the Oromo, popular in Habesha discourse are the product of this colonial ideology.
Military technology: Obviously firearms were the other crucial elements in making the imperial colonial penetration of the African continent in the nineteenth century possible. Therefore, drawing parallels between the Abyssinian and European and Abyssinian colonial expansion during the Scramble, Margery Perham notes “The speed with which this great extension of the empire was made ….is explained by the …firearms which the emperor [Menelik] was obtaining from France and Italy. This same superiority was carrying the European powers at the same speed at the same time from the coast into the heart of Africa.” The Swedish historian Norberg also says that “using the same military technology as the European powers”, Menelik managed not only to conquer the neighbouring African territories, but was also able to garrison them with large forces called naftanya who controlled and lived on the conquered populations. As suggested by Richard Caulk, “the system of near serfdom imposed on wide areas of the south by the end of the nineteenth century could have not been maintained had the newcomers not been so differently armed. The historian Darkwah notes that “Menelik succeeded in keeping the arms out of the reach of the [Oromo] enemy. He did this by imposing a strict control over the movement of firearms into his tributary territories and the lands beyond his frontiers.”
Menelik was not a manufacturer of firearms, but was a keen importer of them. The bulk of firearms in his arsenal numbered around 25,000 in 1878. According to Luckman and Bekele, he was able to import over one million rifles, a quantity of Hotchkiss guns and artillery pieces between 1880 and 1900. For that purpose, he used more than a dozen French and Italian commercial agents and suppliers of firearms. In addition, European states were also supplying him with modern weapons in an attempt to use him as a proxy in their colonial scheme in northeast Africa. As I will explain below, the support Menelik received from European powers in his Scramble for colonies was not limited to firearms; military training and diplomacy were also included.
Europeans in the making of the Ethiopian empire
The other dimension of the history of Abyssinia’s conquest of the south, which is bypassed silently by Ethiopian historiographers and is denied incessantly by Habesha politicians, is the involvement of European fortune seekers and mercenaries in the making of Menelik’s Empire. There is no research on how many Europeans were in his service but, whatever their number might have been, the role they played in his conquest of the south must have been significant. Darkwah notes that “in 1877 a Frenchman named Pottier was employed in training a group of Shewan youths in European military techniques. Another Frenchman, Pino, was a regular officer in the army which was commanded by Ras Gobana. Swiss engineers, Alfred Ilg and Zemmerman were employed on, among other things, building bridges across the Awash and other rivers to facilitate movement.”According to Chris Prouty, Colonel Artamonov together with other Europeans was attached to the forces commanded by Ras Tasamma Nadew in Ilu Abbabor. He adds that even Count Nicholas Leontiev, a colonel in the Russian army, was a commander of a force which was sent to conquer the southwest in the 1890s. Another Russian officer, Baron Chedeuvre was Leontiev’s second-in-command during the expedition. Several French and Russian medical officers were also attached to the Abyssinian forces, particularly those which were led by Menelik and European commanders. The Russian Cossack Captain Alexander Bulatovich wrote that with him, there were Lieutenants Davydov, Kokhovskiy and Arnoldi along with a command of Cossacks who had finished their term of service” and who were received in audience by Menelik and took leave from him and returned to Russia in June 1898.
Several advisors helped Menelik in different fields to build his Empire. The Swiss engineer, Alfred Ilg had served him in a variety of capacities including diplomatic contacts for 27 years. The Italians made not only material but also diplomatic contributions that enabled Menelik to compete effectively in the scramble for colonies. The idea and the contents of the circular letter which Menelik sent to European heads of state in 1891 delineating his territorial claims came, for example, from the Italian Prime Minister Francesco Crispi himself. Menelik was advised to send the letter to European heads of state because the European powers were about to meet in Paris and establish the boundaries of their colonies in Africa. The territories which were defined in the letter the Italians drafted for Menelik to claim extended “as far as Khartoum and to Lake Nyanza beyond the land of the Galla [Oromo].” The territories were those which the Italians were planning to claim for themselves through Menelik as their proxy. However, the European support in firearms and diplomacy given to Menelik was a double-edged sword. It helped him to conquer the Oromo and amass resources to defeat the Italians at Adwa. That said, the conclusion we can draw is that Abyssinia’s participation in the Scramble for Africa is crystal clear. As the historian Haggai Erlich succinctly stated, “While rebuffing imperialism successfully in the north, Ethiopia managed to practice it in the south.” It was also based on what is outlined above that Bonnie Holcomb and Sisai Ibssa have eloquently described the Abyssinian conquest of the south as manifestation of “dependent colonialism” and its outcome the “invention of Ethiopia”. By that they meant the direct and indirect meshing of Abyssinian and European interests in the making of the Abyssinian-cum-Ethiopian Empire. Thus, notwithstanding the inconclusive arguments being orchestrated by denialists, the historical facts lead to the unescapable conclusion that Abyssinia was an active participant in the Scramble for Africa.
Where colonialism did not have race or color
Based on what I have described above, it is logical to construe that colonialism had no specific color or nationality in the Horn of Africa – its color was white and black and its nationality English, French, Italian or Abyssinian. The difference is in the degree of brutality used against the colonized peoples and the severity of exploitation exercised in the colonies. The intensity of demonizing Oromo scholars, activists and politicians who write and speak about the colonization of Oromia and the cacophony of denials expressed in the flora of written and oral commentaries will not change this historical truth.
That a black African force had defeated a white European army at Adwa in 1896 is beyond doubt. But, the representation of Adwa as an anti-colonial war and an African victory over colonialism is an atrocious lie. Indeed, Adwa was a turning point in the Scramble for colonies in the Horn of Africa; Menelik relinquished the role he was playing as an Italian proxy at the battle of Adwa, retained for himself the territories he had hitherto conquered using the firearms he had acquired partly from the Italians, with the understanding that they would be partners in the ownership of the territories he was conquering. He became a member of the colonialist club in his own right. In short, as colonialism lost its color at Adwa, military might became the decisive factor in the share of the African cake. The European mass media of the time reported that fact. The Spectator of 27 February 1897, for example, reflected the British view of the matter stating that, although Menelik, his queen, and his generals care little for human life, “this native dynasty of dark men,” nominally Christian is “orderly enough to be received into intercourse with Europe.” The European colonial powers recognized ‘the dynasty of dark men’, as their junior partner in the scramble for colonies. Soon after Adwa, both Britain and France negotiated and signed agreements that delineated the colonial borders with Abyssinia.
The whole story about the battle of Adwa is not written yet. Its bright side has been illuminated time and again. But its ugly sides are deliberately concealed from proper scrutiny or distorted by self-appointed “gurus” of Ethiopian history with Professor Haile Larebo as their outstanding representative. In the following paragraphs, I will describe briefly some of the non-glamorous sides of the victory at Adwa, namely, the ‘recruitment’ of colonial subjects for the war efforts, their treatment in the aftermath of Adwa, and the atrocious treatment of black (Eritrean) prisoners of war.
The circumstances, under which the peoples of the south, such as the Oromo, who were conquered in the 1880s, and the Walaita, who were conquered by Menelik two years before the battle of Adwa, were made to march north and participate in the battle, remains uninvestigated. Did they march north to fight against Italian colonialism voluntarily? What had happened to them after the war? These questions are never raised or answered in the story. Were they rewarded for their contributions in the victory over the Italians? I will not delve into details, but the answer is a definitive ‘No’! They were, as indicated in the case of the Walaita, captives who were forced to march north and became cannon-fodder. The reward for those who had survived the war and returned home must have varied depending on their status. The probability for those who were slaves to remain as such was almost hundred percent. The probability that some were sold by their masters to cover expenses on their southward journey after the war or afterwards was significant. Thus, the Oromo, the Sidama and Walaita, who participated in the battle of Adwa, did not win any victory over colonialism for themselves. They helped a black colonialist to defeat a white colonialist in a war over colonies. They did not defend themselves or their peoples against the colonialists. They fought for their enemy and strengthened the grip of black imperialism on themselves by defeating its white Italian antagonist. It was after Adwa that Menelik imposed the notorious gabbar system on the conquered south. Slavery and the slave trade became even more rampant thereafter with the conquest of the rest of the south and southwest which became hunting grounds for captives and ivory. Ironically, it was the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1936 which brought the outrageous institution and evil trade in human beings to an end. To suggest that it was a “united Ethiopia” that fought the Battle of Adwa or Ethiopia was united because of the victory achieved at Adwa is a charade.
In the interview he gave on March 22, 2017 to Radio Atronos, Larebo calls Menelik the most democratic emperor in world history and that Ethiopia was blessed to have had him as their ruler. However, this “most democratic” emperor had no mercy for black prisoners of war. In his book From Menelik to Haile Selassie II, (was used a history text book in grades four through seven in the 1960s in Ethiopia) the historian Tekle Tsadiq Mekuriya notes that “Menelik released the Italian and Arab [presumably Libyan] prisoners of war and gave them food and drinks, but he ordered with the approval of the head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Abuna Matewos, the mutilation of Eritreans caught fighting on the Italian side.”According to another source, “The Italians taken prisoner were treated well but Ethiopian [Eritrean] troops (around 800) who had fought for the Italians were mutilated with their right hands and left feet being cut off.” Where is the saint-like character Professor Larebo ascribes to Menelik? The cruelty with which the Eritreans were treated was similar to the crime committed against thousands of Oromo men and women whose arms and breasts were hacked off by the order of Menelik’s paternal uncle Ras Darge ten years earlier at Anole, in Arsi. The difference was that the Eritreans were Italian colonial soldiers while the Oromo were unarmed men and women who were invited to a meeting, which appeared to be for peacemaking, by Ras Darge many months after the Battle of Azule in September 1886. In that battle with the invading Abyssinian forces the Arsi Oromo lost some 12,000 warriors and were defeated.
James, W. “Preface” in Donham, D. & James, W. (eds.), The Southern Marches of Imperial Ethiopia: Essays in History and Social Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, p. xiv.
 Marcus, H. The Life and Times of Menelik II: Ethiopia 1844-1913. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1975: 140, 73
 Pankhurs, R. Economic History of Ethiopia, 1800-1935. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University press, 1968: 102.
 Berhane-Selassie, T. “Menelik II: Conquest and Consolidation of Southern Provinces”, B.A. Thesis, History Department, Addis Ababa University, 1969.
 Cited in Prouty, C. Empress Taytu and Menelik II: Ethiopia 1883-1910, Trenton, NJ: The Red Sea Press, 1996
 Prouty, C. ibid. p. 115
 De Salviac, M. An Ancient People in the State of Menelik: the Oromo, Great African Nation. Translated into English by Ayalew Kanno. 1901/2006: 354-355
 Araarsa, Tsegaye, Facebook post on March 1, 2016
 Plaut, M. “The Africans who fought in WWII, BBC November 9, 2009.
 Marcus, H. ibid.
 Tareke, Gebru. Ethiopia: Power and Protest. Lawrenceville, N.J: The Red Sea Press, 1996:40
 Bairu Tafla, in Asmé, 1905 [1987: 405, fn. 584]
 Huxley, E. White Man’s Country: Lord Delamere and the Making of Kenya, 1967: 38-9
Markakis, M. Ethiopia: The Last Frontiers, James Currey, New York, 2011, pp. 3-4.
 Scherrer, C. “Analysis and Background to the refugee Crisis: The Unsolved Oromo Question”, in Scherrer, C. & Bulcha, M. War Against the Oromo and Mass Exodus From Ethiopia: Voices of Oromo Refugees in Kenya and the Sudan, 2002, p. 27
Tareke, Gebru, ibid. p. 71
 Perham, M. (1969). The Government of Ethiopia, London: Faber and Faber, 1969: 294
 Norberg, V. H. “Swedes as a Pawn in Haile Selassie’s Foreign Policy: 1924-1952”, in Modern Ethiopia, Tubiana, J. (ed.), Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1980:328
 Caulk. R. “Firearms and Princely Power in Ethiopia in the Nineteenth Century”, Journal of African History, XIII (4)
 Darkwah, R.H.K. Shewa, Menelik and the Ethiopian Empire, 1813-1889, London: Heinemann. 1975: 207.
 Luckman, R. & Bekele, D. “Foreign Powers and Militarism in the Horn of Africa”, Review of African Economy”, No. 30, 1984.
 Pankhurst, R. Economic History of Ethiopia, 1800-1935. Addis Ababa, 1968: 21.
 Darkwah, R.H.K. ibid. pp. 58-9.
 Bulatovich A. Ethiopia Through Russian Eyes: A Country in Transition, 1896-1898, translated and edited by Richard Seltzer, Lawrenceville, N.J: The Red Sea Press. Two volumes combined in the English translation, 1900/2000: 162
 Marcus, H. ibid. p.124
 Cited in Markakis, J. ibid. p. 3.
 Holcomb, B. & Ibssa, S. (1990). The Invention of Ethiopia: The Making of a Dependent Colonial State in Northeast Africa, Trenton, N.J.: The Red Sea Press.
 See Darley, H. 1926. Slaves and Ivory: A Record of Adventure and Exploration in the Unknown Sudan, and Among the Abyssinian Slave-Raiders, for a vivid description of slave raiding by the conquerors in these areas in the 1920s.
 Tekle-Tsadik Mekuriya, The History of Ethiopia: From Emperor Tewodros to Emperor Haile Selassie. In Amharic. Addis Ababa: Berhan ena Selam, Printing Press. 7th Edition, 1961 Eth. C (1968). p. 98.
 See Dugdale-Pointon, T. Battle of Adwa, 1-2 March 1896, http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_adwa.html, 19 February 2009. Accessed on 12 March 2017
Oromia: Humnaa fi Kijibni Furmaata Rakkoo Siyaasaa hin Tahu February 27, 2016Posted by OromianEconomist in #OromoProtests, Colonizing Structure, Ethiopia's Colonizing Structure and the Development Problems of People of Oromia, Afar, Ogaden, Sidama, Southern Ethiopia and the Omo Valley.
Tags: "Pathology of Colonialism" Tearing Apart Nation, #OromoProtetst2016, Africa, Continued Massacre in State of Oromia by the Tyrannical TPLF Government in Ethiopia: Appeal Letter Submitted to UN, Ethiopia's Colonizing Structure and the Development Problems of People of Oromia, Ethnic cleansing Against Oromo People, Genocide, Humnaa fi Kijibni Furmaata Rakkoo Siyaasaa hin Tahu, Invention of Ethiopia: The Making of Dependent Colonial State in Northeast Africa by Bonnie K. Holcomb (Author), Ogaden, Oromia, Oromo
add a comment
SBO (Guraandhala 27 bara 2016):Haalli Oromiyaa yeroo ammaa, duula jaarraa 19ffaa ummata Oromoo fi Oromiyaa irratti gaggeessameen wal fakkaata. Duulli jaarraa 19ffaa, ummata Oromoo waan hunda dhabsiise. Akeekaa fi kaayyoon humnaan jaarraa 19ffaa keessa raggaafame ummata Oromoo biyyaa fi qabeenya dhabsiise. Of lagatuun eenyummaa alagaa akka maxxanfatuuf dirqee, Oromummaa daandii dhabamaa qabsiise. Aadaa isaa boonsaa fi sirna bulchiinsaa dimokraatawaa dhabamsiisee sirna cunqursaa fi saaminsaa bakka buuse. Duulli jaarraa 21ffaa kana keessatti ummata Oromoo irratti Wayyaaneen gaggeeffamaa jirus kana irraa addummaa hin qabu. Mootummaan Wayyaanees ummata Oromoo jilbeenfachiisuun ol aantummaa ofii irratti dagaagsuun, qabeenya isaa saamuu fi booji’uun abbummaa irratti qabaatee saamaa jiraatuun akeeka isaa ti.
Sirni gabrummaa ummatni Oromoo Jaarraa 19ffaa irraa eegalee keessa jiraatuuf dirqame bifa isaa jijjiirrataa hanga ammaatti itti fufus, Ummatni Oromoo gabrummaa jalaa of baasuuf qabsoo adeemsiisaa tureen dhabama irraa kan of baraare tahullee, alagaa of irraa qaarsisuun mirga isaa hin gonfatne. Hanga ammaatti alagaatu ummata Oromoo fi Oromiyaa irratti ajaja. Qabeenya ummata Oromoo irratti alagaatu abbaadha. Kanneen isa bulchan ofiif filatuuf mirga hin arganne. Kan bittootni muudaniif jalatti bula.
Kana kan ummata Oromoo baadiyyaa maayyii irraa hanga magaalota gurguddootti gaaffii tokkicha qabatuun akka fincilu taasise. Gaaffiin qabatee ka’ees, gaaffii mirgaa, gaaffii dimokraasii, gaaffii ofiin of bulchuu ti. Gaaffilee ummatni Oromoo yeroo ammaa kaasaa jiru irraa, haalli Oromiyaa keessatti mul’ataa jiru hundeen sirna gabrummaa raasamuu fi kan itti fufuu hin dandeenye tahuu hubachiisa. Bittootnis qabrii irraa of hambsiuuf diddaa ummataa kana ukkaamsuuf tarkaanfii faashistummaa fudhataa jiran. Tarkaanfii bittootaa kanaanis Oromiyaa fi ummatni Oromoo jeeqamaa jiran. Ji’oottan sadan dabraniif humni addaa fi amanamaa sirnichaa, Agaazii, gandeen Oromiyaa hunda keessatti bobbaafamee lammiilee Oromoo ajjeesuu, hidhuu fi ummata hiraarsuu irratti argama. Tarkaanfii gara jabinaa humna Wayyaaneen fudhatamaa jiru kanaanis, lammiileen Oromoo xiqqaa hanga guddaatti, dhalattootni Oromoo hawaasa keessatti mul’atoo fi beekamoo ganda mara keessatti ajjeefamaa jiran.
Bittootni tarkaanfii suukanneessaa kanaan ummata Oromoo jiilchuun qabsoo bilisummaa irraa fageessuu, akkasumas Ummata Oromoo Bahaa fi Dhihatti qooduun garaagarummaa uumuudhaan qabsoo itti jiru akka dhaabu gochuuf guddoo hojjatan. Kana malees tarkaanfii suukanneessaa ummata Oromoo irratti fudhataniin ummatootni cunqorfamoo biroo gaaffii fakkaataa qabanii fi sirna mootummaa Wayyaanee bututee jiru morman, “Nutis gaaffii mirgaa yoo gaafanne hiree fakkaataatu nu mudata” jedhanii sodaatuun adabatanii akka taa’aniif tarkaanfii bineensummaa fudhatan. Kun garuu yaada hokkolaa fi fudhatama hin qabne tahuu irraa lagatamee Fincilli Xumura Gabrummaa (FXG) itti fufe. Ummatoota kan fincilsiisu roorroo dha. Jiraatuu fi duuti garaa garummaa dhabuu irraa mirgaa fi kabajaa ofiif qabsaawaa dabruu akka filatan taasisa. Murtiin ummata Oromoos kanuma.
Ummatni Oromoo qabsoo bilisummaa wayta eegale qabsoo isaatiin mirga isaa dhuunfatuuf malee bittoota cunqursaa fi saaminsa galii godhatan gaaffii isaaf deebii ni kennu jedhuun, akkasumas ofiin alatti humna biraa abdatuu irraa miti. Kana irraa ti, har’a qe’ee Oromoo keessatti kan ajjechaan babal’ate. Hidhaa fi roorroon kan hammaateef.
Mootummaan Wayyaanee har’as furmaatni rakkoo afaan qawwee keessaa argama jechuun tarkaanfiin fudhataa jiru kanneen isa waliin hiriiran illee isa dhabsiisaa akka jiru tarkaanfii lammiileen Oromoo fudhataa jiran ragaa taha. Hidhattootni gandaa, poolisootnii fi bulchitootni sadarkaa adda addaa tarkaanfii Wayyaaneen ummata keenya irratti fudhataa jiru sirrii miti jechuun sirna saaminsaa fi cunqursaa Wayyaaneetti gara galaa jiran. Kana irraa kan rifate mootummaan Wayyaanee karaa ministera beeksisaa ibsa Guraandhala 26, 2016 gazexeessotaaf kenneen Fincila Xumura Gabrummaa ummatni Oromoo itti jiruuf yakka hin jirree fi hin fakkaatneen isaa yakkuuf osoo yaaluu dhagahamee jira.
Sadarkaa duraatti, hogganootni sirnichaa, “ Jaallattanis jibbitanis” jechuun doorsisanii gaaffii ummata Oromoo dhaamsuuf abbalan. Wayta kun fashaletti “gaaffiin ummata Oromoo gaaffii haqaa ti! Bulchiinsi
Gaarii dhabamuu irraa madde” kan jeddhuun, gaaffii isaa kan deebisan fakkaatanii dhihaatan. Ummatni Oromoo waadaa kijibaa tahuu hubatuun mormii eegale itti fufuu irraa ,” kanneen fincilan farra misoomaa ti, sheexanootaa fi kashlabbootaa ” jechuun ummata doorsisuu fi arrabsuutti tarkaanfatan. Kanaanis ummatni Oromoo kan hin dhaabbanne tahuu wayta hubatanitti ammoo yakka kijibaa “Ergamtoota Shaabiyaa ti” jedhu qabatanii gadi bahan.
Adda Bilisummaa Oromoo yakkuu fi qabsoo ummatootaa Shaabiyaan wal qabsiisuun haaraa miti. “Kan bishaan nyaate, hoomacha qaqqabata” akkuma jedhamu tahee sababa itti barbaadan malee gaaffiin ummatni Oromoo kaasee gaaffii haqaa, gaaffii dimokraasii fi kan mirgaa ti. Kaleessas ni ture. Hanga deebii quubsaa argatuttis itti fufa. Ummatni Oromoo mirga isaaf kan falmatu ajaja ykn qajeelfama alagaa irraa argatuun akka hin taane ammoo Wayyaaneen olitti kan beeku hin jiru.
Mootummaan Wayyaanee, mormii ummatni Oromoo karaa nagaa itti jiru dhaamsuuf humnatti gargaaramuu ykn sababa biraa itti barbaaduun, rakkoo siyaasaa biyyattii hin furu. Hadhaa’u illee haqa jiru beekanii fudhatuudhaan furmaata waaraaf sosso’uutu irra qajeelaa tahuu ABOn har’as irra deebi’ee hubachiisa. Ummata gabrummaan haa gahu! jedhee murannoon ka’e qawween boodatti hin deebisu. Ummata bilisummaan wareegama malee akka hin argamne hubatee bilisummaa isaaf wareega fedhe baasuuf murteeffate heddumminni ajjeechaa manatti isa hin dachaasu.
Kanaaf karaan tokkichi jiru gaaffii ummataa dhaggeeffatuu danda’uu dha. Gaaffii ummatni karaa nagaa dhiheesseef karaa nagaa deebii itti kennuun tarkaanfii baranee fi qaroomaa ti. Kanaan alatti “Humnaan waanan dhufeef humnaanan bitaa jiraa dha!” jedhanii tarkaanfii humnaa fudhatuu itti fufuun, karaa badii qabriitti geessu tahuu hubatuun gamnummaa dha.
A THIRSTY THIRD WORLD: HOW LAND GRABS ARE LEAVING ETHIOPIA IN THE DUST, By Emily Ingebretsen September 19, 2015Posted by OromianEconomist in Land and resource Rights, Land Grabs in Africa, Land Grabs in Oromia.
Tags: Africa, Ethiopia's colonizing structure and development problems in Oromia and Omo Valley, Invention of Ethiopia: The Making of Dependent Colonial State in Northeast Africa by Bonnie K. Holcomb (Author), Land and water grabs, land and water grabs in Oromia, Land grab, land grab in Africa, Land grab in Oromia & Gambella
1 comment so far
Attracting investment to Ethiopia by offering large plots of land to agricultural investors is a development strategy being aggressively pursued by the Ethiopian government. The government announced this strategy in 2009, stating it planned to lease 3 million hectares1 of land to foreign and domestic investors for agriculture use over a period of three years in order to increase productivity and earn foreign exchange (McClure 2009, 1). The simplest motivation for these actions is macroeconomic. In 2009, the IMF issued a staff report stating that the balance of payments in Ethiopia for the 2009-2010 year was “troubling” due to the global recession taking a toll on remittances, exports, and direct foreign investment. The impact of rising oil prices and decreasing foreign assistance was also expected to have an impact (IMF 2009, 5). In response to these prospects, the Ethiopian government created the Federal Land Bank to facilitate the acquisition of land by investors looking to acquire large tracts for cultivation. The foreign investors are mainly coming from India and Saudi Arabia, but also from Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Italy, China, and recently, even the National Bank of Egypt (Makki and Geisler 2011, 13). In addition, about half of the investors are domestic, representing Ethiopian diaspora or wealthy Ethiopian highland residents (Vidal 2011). The investors are mainly interested in growing crops to export to their home markets or in cultivating agrofuels, crops which are used to create biofuels. While some 1 Approximately 7.4 million acres A THIRSTY THIRD WORLD Page 7 of 74 companies promise to sell some produce on the domestic market, there are no contractual obligations to do such. The issue of transferring land and its productive uses from domestic cultivators to foreign interests is particularly concerning in Ethiopia as it is a country that has often made headlines for famines, and the underlying issue, droughts. Despite having a great deal of water in certain areas, sporadic rainfall and poor collection techniques make water security a central issue of concern for the country. Many of the countries that are choosing to grow crops in Ethiopia are countries that face water insecurities of their own. They are seeking to stabilize their food security, but the impact that this will have on water access and quality for Ethiopians who depend on subsistence agriculture for survival is not being addressed in the deals that have been made. Anders Jågerskog, a leading scholar on the issue of water and land deals from the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) has noted that, “The risk from poorly supervised land acquisitions is that a wealthy economy simply exports its water “footprint” elsewhere” (SAPA 2012). It is especially concerning that the design and implementation of this policy is having a stratified, possibly intentional, impact on the different ethnically divided regions of the country. The region experiencing the heaviest concentration of land deals is Gambella, a comparatively tiny region in the southwestern part of the country, bordered by newly formed South Sudan to its west. This area has had 42 percent of its land leased out to investors. Gambella also has had a difficult and increasingly violent relationship with the federal government. There have been numerous instances of the government targeting this region with oppressive tactics, violence, and biased policies. It is also one of the areas that has been identified for the latest wave of villagization, a process of relocation that is being undertaken to “increase service delivery.” However, Gambella’s villagization program appears to be being pursued with greater intensity than other regions’ programs as the government has stated it intends to relocate every indigenous, rural household in Gambella (HRW 2012, 22). The scale and intensity of these land grabs in this region coupled with the fervor of villagization is very concerning and merits much closer attention. – Emily-Ingebretsen.-A-Thirsty-Third-World
Also read at:-
A THIRSTY THIRD WORLD: HOW LAND GRABS ARE LEAVING ETHIOPIA IN THE DUST, WH2O Issue 4, pp 94-103
Tags: Ethiopia's colonizing structure and development problems in Oromia and Omo Valley, Ethiopia: The Last Two Frontiers, Invention of Ethiopia: The Making of Dependent Colonial State in Northeast Africa by Bonnie K. Holcomb (Author)
add a comment
My experience with some Habeshas is that they lack awareness of what offends and what does not offend others. They say things without thinking about others’ feelings. Gossiping about others (especially dark skinned persons) is a day to day duty for some Habeshas. In fact, badmouthing dark skinned individuals is encouraged and supported by others in Habashas’ culture. The Anyuaks, on the other hand, despise gossiping so much that it is almost a taboo in their culture. The Anyuaks’ cultural norms forbid them from saying things that may offend others. Badmouthing some one, especially if he/she is not present, is met by immediate condemnation by others in Anyuak culture. Thus, individual Anyuaks barely say bad things about others. With so many ignorant and narrow minded population of her own, my fear for Ethiopia is that one day she will break into pieces. My biggest fear is that one day the rest of the ethnic groups in Ethiopian will get fed up with the ignorance and the unwillingness to learn by some Habeshas and breakaway from Ethiopia. I call on all Habeshas who have not yet come to terms with the reality of the world to start permitting themselves for learning, because the 21st century offers no excuse for choosing to remain ignorant.
The difference between being an Ethiopian and being Habesha
By Magn Nyang, Sudan Tribune, February 17, 2009
Recently, a 22-year old young girl from Anyuak of Gambella won the beauty contest of Ms. Ethiopia. Lots of responses went out on media from Ethiopians all over the world about her win. Even though, most respondents seemed very knowledgeable about the differences between being an Ethiopian and being Habesha, few seemed confused about the differences. In their writings, the confused ones, wrote as if they own Ethiopia and as if being an Ethiopian means being Habesha. This article seeks to show the differences between being an Ethiopian and being Habesha.
The Habesha are those people who are from the North part of Ethiopia, specifically, the Tigre, the Agew, the Beta Israel and the Amhara. The Anyuaks of Gambella are from Southwest of Ethiopia. These two groups led their lives and their history seperately. The Anyuaks had their own history in the Southwest dating back to 2,000 years.
Some 2,000 years ago, the Anyuak country, as it was called, was situated between Southwestern Oromo land, present day part of Ethiopia to Pibor River and to the West up to Nyium, present day Nasir in the Sudan.
The Anyuak country was divided by four main Rivers- the Akobo, Openo, Alworo, and Gillo. The Anyuaks had seven administration states- Adongo, Ciro, Nyikaani, Lul, Tier Naam, and Openo under one Nyeya (king) rule. Each state had its own autonomous administration. They had rights to choose from the two Anyuaks’ political systems- Nyech (kingship) or Kwar (headman-ship). The fact of the matter is Anyuak country was never part of Ethiopia or Sudan before 1902. The integrity of Anyuak country came to an end when it came under nominal British control from 17th to the 18th century followed by Ethiopian invasion. On May 15, 1902, after complicated and prolonged negotiations, Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia signed the Anglo-Ethiopian agreement that established his Western frontier with the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. This treaty divided the Anyuak land in two, portioned it amongst the bordering countries Sudan and Ethiopia, without the consent of its leaders. The Southwestern part remained under British control as part of Sudan and the Eastern part became part of Ethiopia under the name Gambella. The word “Gambella” means “Catching a male Tiger with bare hands” in Anyuak.
The Habesha history goes back to the Axumite Empire in the first century A.D. It was documented that around first century A.D., some Hamitic-Semitic peoples (Sabaean traders) from South Arabian came into contact with native people and intermarried. Their off-springs were referred to as “Habesha”, which means “people of mixed blood”. Their land (Tigray, Begemdir, Gojam, Northern Shewa, and Welo) was later termed Abyssinia. It was only when the Abyssinia state exhausted its scarce resources that its leaders expended its frontiers South and Westward in order to amass the resources needed to feed their subjects. Per advice from Count Pietro Antonelli, an Italian with geographic Society mission in Abyssinia, the state of Abyssinia combined with the newly added states of the South and the West, were later referred to as “Ethiopia”
Since the Anyuak country was portioned to Ethiopia in 1902 under the name of Gambella, the Anyuaks became Ethiopians, not Habeshas. The Anyuaks, like the rest of Ethiopians (Afar, Adari, Oromo, Somalis, Gurage, Koman, Kunama, Sidama, Berta, Kembata, Amhara, Tigre, and so on—) are proud Ethiopians. And as long as the contest was held for Ethiopians, not for Habeshas, the Anyuaks have all the rights to participate in it. After all, they were called upon to fight side by side with their Ethiopian fellow citizens to defend Ethiopia in times of need. Therefore, why would they not participate in Ethiopians’ beauty contest?
And if some uneducated Habesha foolishly believe that they are the owners of Ethiopia and get offended instead of applauding when their fellow Ethiopian from Gambella wins the beauty contest, I suggest that they start holding their own Habesha beauty contest and we, the non-Habesha Ethiopians will not participate in it. What some ignorant Habeshas need to know is that the Anyuaks are Ethiopians by the virtue of geographical birth. By being born within the geographical area of Ethiopia, the Anyuaks are Ethiopians.
No Ethiopian is more Ethiopian than the other. One is only an Ethiopian, no more, no less. Some Habeshas, however, seem to see themselves as more Ethiopians than the others. What they don’t seem to understand is that one can not quantify one’s citizenship. One can only be Ethiopian. Not more Ethiopian.
One thing I learned from my education and professional background is that those who put others down or those who think of themselves as superiors, are actually suffering from inferiority complex unconsciously. One who is self assured and confident sees no need to put others down to feel good about himself/herself. Some Habashas suffer from inferiority complex. They are always bent on looking for ways to put others down in order to feel good about themselves. And the outrage responses we recently witnessed from some Habeshas about the winning of Ethiopians’ beauty contest by a young girl from Gambella was not only a manifestation of ignorance, it was also a manifestation of inferiority complex.
In my youth, I lived in Addis Ababa. I even went to high school there (I spent my teenage years in Addis Ababa). I can say with confidence that I know both the Anyuaks and the Habeshas very closely. My experience with some Habeshas is that they lack awareness of what offends and what does not offend others. They say things without thinking about others’ feelings. Gossiping about others (especially dark skinned persons) is a day to day duty for some Habeshas. In fact, badmouthing dark skinned individuals is encouraged and supported by others in Habashas’ culture. The Anyuaks, on the other hand, despise gossiping so much that it is almost a taboo in their culture. The Anyuaks’ cultural norms forbid them from saying things that may offend others. Badmouthing some one, especially if he/she is not present, is met by immediate condemnation by others in Anyuak culture. Thus, individual Anyuaks barely say bad things about others.
With so many ignorant and narrow minded population of her own, my fear for Ethiopia is that one day she will break into pieces. My biggest fear is that one day the rest of the ethnic groups in Ethiopian will get fed up with the ignorance and the unwillingness to learn by some Habeshas and breakaway from Ethiopia. I call on all Habeshas who have not yet come to terms with the reality of the world to start permitting themselves for learning, because the 21st century offers no excuse for choosing to remain ignorant.
The writer is a son of Gambella and can be reached at email@example.com
OMN: A Conversation with Author Bonnie Holcomb/Qabbanee: The Co-Author of ‘Invention of Ethiopia: The Making of Dependent Colonial State in Northeast Africa’ August 23, 2015Posted by OromianEconomist in Colonizing Structure, Ethiopian Empire, Oromia, Self determination.
Tags: Africa, African Studies, Bonnie Holcomb, Invention of Ethiopia: The Making of Dependent Colonial State in Northeast Africa by Bonnie K. Holcomb (Author), Qabannee, Self determination, Sisai Ibssa (Author)
add a comment
Revisiting ‘The Kindling Point #3: On the Meaning of ‘Ethiopian”
Related article:- WhoOwnsTheEthiopianNation_State2012