Oropia is Our Gross Salary, Whereas Oromia is Net Salary!
No question that Oropia (Oromummà led Ethiopia) is almost twice bigger than Oromia. The Oromo now deciding to own Oropia is like having gross salary without any subtraction. It seems that almost all Oromo nationalists agree to do the work of transforming Ethiopia from the hitherto Amapia (Amaranet dominated country) to the henceforth Oropia. The Oromo, owning Oropia, will be the giver of right to self-determination, no more reciever as it used to look like. Other nations far away from Finfinné like Amaria of Bahirdar and Tigrai of Maqale can separate from Oromia by demanding their right of self-determination up to independence, if they want. In case all nations want to go, at last we will have the remaining Oromia as net salary. Oromo people’s common vision was bilisimmà (liberation). The three post-bilisummà types of sovereignty envisioned by different Oromo political groups are an independent Oromia, a federal Union (democratic Ethiopia with ethnic federation) and an integrative Oropia. I think the first type was good for mobilizing the Oromo during the struggle for freedom, which we already achieved. The second one is good now in the transitional phase towards democracy and surely the third vision, as the most advantageous, will be nice in the future.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/04/2 ... et-salary/
Re: Oropia is Our Gross Salary, Whereas Oromia is Net Salary!
You ferenjis are restless now. What happened 
your hopes on the gala was too high
your hopes on the gala was too high
Re: Oropia is Our Gross Salary, Whereas Oromia is Net Salary!
There was a time, when Oromo freedom fighters wanted to liberate Oromo people from any sort of subjugation in Ethiopia without trying to demarcate national area – Oromia. For instance, we can mention movements like Ràyyà Oromo revolt, Bale Oromo resistance, initiation of Maccà Tülama Association, Oromo struggle led by ME’ISON and IC’AT as well as formation of ENLF (Ethiopian National Liberation Front), which was forerunner of the OLF. Then, we came into a situation, which helped some Oromo nationals perceive, accept and respect the existence of an Oromo national area (Oromia), but yet without an attempt to separate this area from other national areas. Ethiopa is said to be build mainly by blood and bone of Oromo people. Lately, now we are in the era, when we started to think, not only about existence of Oromo national area, but also about the necessity of liberating this region in form of an independent Oromia. These three visions (1. Oropia as the whole Ethiopia without demarcating Oromia, 2. free Oromia within Oropia; having both of them can be named as federal Union, and 3. an independent Oromia without Oropia) as well as the respective political movements are still entertained in Oromo society at large. Common denominator of the three forces is struggle for an unconditional freedom of Oromo people from any sort of political domination, economic exploitation and cultural suppression.
That is why I think that Oromo liberation movement had two wings and one middle-body as three important positions fighting the enemy. One wing wanted to change the whole Ethiopia, name the country as Oropia without specific Oromo state (kilil) and promote Afàn Oromo to a federal working language of the country; the middle-body wanted to establish an independent Oromia, which will have influential position in the whole Horn of Africa; another wing wanted to liberate Oromia within Oropia and make it to be the leading nation-state of the union. These three parts of Oromo liberation movement were trying to harmonize their moves against our common current enemy – the still existing system of domination. Accordingly, we did find Oromo movement in all spectrum of opposition parties and liberation fronts. Surprisingly there was no organization on ground to represent the whole movement coordinating and accommodating all the three parts. This reality persuaded us to think that Oromo liberation was inevitable, and the possible three types of Oromia’s sovereignty are not as such disadvantageous for Oromo people.
The three parts of our liberation movement were results of the three approaches we, Oromo nationals, do have towards our history. It seems that we are treating our history in three dimensions: (1) as only common proud history of Oromia and Abyssinia, such as Adwa Battle; (2) as only conflicting parallel history of Oromia and Abyssinia, such as Minilik invasion and the so-called Oromo expansion; (3) as both common proud history and conflicting parallel history of Oromia and Abyssinia. Now, we can see that consequences of the above three approaches are the three possible destinies regarding Oromian sovereignty. To achieve our freedom efficiently, despite these different views, we had to firstly try to fight together for our common agenda of freedom from the system of domination, and then settle to choose one of the following types of sovereignty based on the version of Oromo history we respectively have in mind. It is clear that:
– those, who tend to accept both the common proud part and the conflicting parallel part of our history, opt for liberation in English style. English people liberated themselves from 700 years rule of Roman empire, forged England as an autonomous region and united it with neighboring others to form British United Kingdom’; they promoted English to working language of the Kingdom. Can’t Oromia, being autonomous and free from alien forces, be united with neighboring autonomous regions to forge Oropian union, similar to that of British United Kingdom and promote Afàn Oromo to a primary working language of the union?
– those, who do perceive only the conflicting parallel history, prefer liberation in Russian style. Russian elites dismantled Soviet union and established Russian federation, which uses Russian national language, the federation which still does have influence on its neighboring nations, because of its economic and military strength. Does this way of dismantling the federal union and fostering the highly wished independent Oromia to have further influence over other liberated neighboring countries more advantageous than the other two types of sovereignty? Moreover, this type of sovereignty looks like favoring national independence without envisioning the possible regional integration.
– those, who do believe in only common proud history, tend to choose liberation of Oromia in Indian style. The Hindi people liberated all nations and nationalities in their region and named the whole country as India, made Hindi working language of Indian federation and, of course, divided national area of Hindi into multiple federal regions. Why not Oromo people liberate all nations and nationalities, call the whole country ‘Oropia’ and promote Afàn Oromo to primary working language of the federation, with historical local Odà’s of Oromia (Odà-Bisil, -Bulluqi, -Bultum, -Gaarres, -Makodi, -Nabee and -Rôbà) being future separate federal regions of the country?
All Oromo nationals are entitled to choose what ever we believe is the best for our nation; what matters, at last, is, of course, voice of the Oromo majority. I think Oromia’s self-rule and/or Oropia’s shared rule should be agenda of Oromo people now during the transition time, in contrast to federation or separation goal of Tigrayan elites. Interestingly, the three Abyssinianist groups (elites of Amara, Tigrai and Eritrea) have got only one option respectively in their political struggle: Amara elites can only sing about Indian-style for they know that Amarigna has a privilege to be federal language of the country; Eritrean elites, as minority at periphery, were so insecure to live within Oropia so they had only the alternative of separation (Russian-style); Tigrayan elites can neither have language privilege to opt for Indian-style nor the capacity to live alone as an independent nation in order to choose Russian-style, so they do stick to the English-style. But, the Oromo and Oromia, being majority and the center, can play all the three cards (English-, Russian- and Indian-styles) as long as rule of game in the region will be freedom and democracy. So, we, the Oromo people used our advantage and struggled with all pro-freedom and pro-democracy forces of Oropia against the system, to achieved Tour freedom and in order to come to the position of voting for one of the three options of Oromian sovereignty we have.
As far as I am concerned, all the three visions are not harmful, but the decision must be made by politically-conscious Oromo polity and Oromo public per referendum, when the time comes. This short essay is actually a bitter pill I wanted to present to Oromo foes, who were delighted by observing division of Oromo liberation front (the OLF). For their information, the OLF has got in its pocket, from the very beginning, only one goal of freedom, which, at the same time, could be interpreted as three types of sovereignty, and it played with these three cards of sovereignty based on the objective reality it was in, i.e. according to the “here and now” of the situations. Even though the only one aim of freedom is Oromo national self-determination, the three interpretations of the objective regarding the sovereignty are:
– self-rule of Oromia within shared rule of Oropia = internal self-determination of Oromo people,
– self-rule of Oromia without shared rule of Oropia = external self-determination of the Oromo, and
– Oropian citizens’ freedom to have referendum on this issue of external self-determination Vs. internal self-determination.
We know that the OLF permanently advocated for all the three: independence of Oromia, Oromo people’s right to self-determination, and union of free peoples in Oropia. It emphasized one of these three interpretations according to condition of the time (according to Zeitgeist). Whenever Abyssinianist elites became arrogant and started to sing about unconditional unity of their empire with suppression of Oromo’s national rights, it stressed the necessity of an independent republic of Oromia, of course, undermining the possible union. The logic behind this position was that whenever there is suppression, there is a move for separation. When some reasonable politicians from different nations in the empire started to recognize the God-given right of Oromo nation to self-determination, the OLF started to play card of self-determination, i.e. an appropriate decision per referendum either for external self-determination or for internal self-determination. Now, the one structural OLF, which Oromo nationals have believed to own, has been divided into three, each of the factions just taking as a goal one of the three interpretations of the objective regarding sovereignty of Oromia:
– OLF appears to have Oromo national self-determination as its goal, being open for both an external self-determination and an internal self-dtermination as far as Oromo majority will decide for one of the two.
– ONP tried to make no compromise on an external self-determination.
– ODF favors an internal self-determination of nations in Ethiopia; so it strived for a possible alliance with reasonable “pro-unity and democratic” Habesha opposition forces.
Anyways, bad news to foes of Oromo liberation movement was that the three organizations never gave up the struggle for right of Oromo nation to self-determination until Oromo people become determiners of our own destiny, be it within Oropian union or without the union. Otherwise, we differentiated the rhetoric from real conviction. We have heard certain Oromo politicians talking about the “fact” that Oromo people do not want “secession.” But, I do consider such talking about the Oromo wanting independence or not is a wrong generalization. One thing we need to know as fact is that almost all Oromo politicians (including those who do make the above mentioned rhetoric), deep in their hearts, believe in right of Oromo nation to self-determination. This is the hallmark of Oromo nationalists, and it is aim of our mindset (that of our spiritual organization, the OLF). This mindset has got only one aim of freedom with three interpretations regarding sovereignty, but it also does pursue the following three strategies with their respective rhetoric:
– the mindset in rebel organizations has got an explicit rhetoric of self-determination, i.e. in a form of national freedom, be it within or without a union, and it fought for this objective by all means,
– the mindset in opposition organizations has got rhetoric of struggling for liberation in only Ethiopian context, but it covertly struggled for the same goal of self-determination,
– the mindset in ruling organization has got rhetoric, which says: “we have already achieved the liberation,” but it also covertly pushed for the same and similar objective.
So, all our fellow Oromo nationals allowed this mindset move to the aim of freedom in all the three strategies, despite rhetoric of some Oromo nationalists in the opposition and in the ruling Oromo organizations. Our foes knew exactly that, despite the different rhetoric, Oromo liberation movement never be stopped till it achieved the goal of Oromo freedom, and noe Continuo the love towards any of Oromia’s sovereignty. We only needed to motivate ourselves just to make our respective rhetoric and to do our practice in liberation movement on the strategy each of us chose in order to come to the only one objective of self-determination. We forgot rhetoric of Oromo politicians in the ruling party and in opposition parties, who were doing their talks under gunpoint of the dictators (they were just denying right of Oromo people to self-determination at gunpoint), and we strived to achieve our goal, which was already determined by our mindset.
I was personally against any sort of dictatorial unity, and I am supporter of a possible union of free peoples in Oropia based on their free will. Any unity without Oromo’s public verdict will fail, take it only 1 year, about 10 years or as long as 100 years. That is why I do advocate for a lasting solution based on free will of all stakeholders, instead of wishy-washy solution. Some organizations seem to have chosen unconditional territorial integrity as a precondition for an alliance against the dictators, but the unity they do strive for will surely never last long, because it is not based on accepting self-determination of peoples, but based on predetermination of future fate of peoples by only few elites. The alliance against the regime, which was forged by the OLF et al. Was based on a solid ground by taking self-determination of nations, rather than unconditional unity of the country, as precondition for an alliance.
This way or that way, our foes need to know that, they can only manipulate and delay realization of Oromo’s right to self-determination, but they can never hinder it. Oromo’s mindset is still leading us to our only one goal, i.e. to self-determination of Oromo people. Our enemies like it or not, in reality, almost all Oromo nationalists are led in our liberation struggle by this mindset. That is why the International Crisis Group (ICG) wrote: “despite its organizational flaws and divisions, many ordinary Oromos retain an almost messianic belief in the OLF as major nationalist organization.” So, I would like to say: long live the OLF as a trinity (with only one aim of self-determination, but with three possible types of sovereignty to be achieved through three strategies accompanied by three rhetoric).
Just regarding some politically vigilant Oromo nationalists, I personally can understand when they refuse accepting the name Ethiopia as belonging to Oromo people, but we need to dig deep to come to facts that the name Ethiopia is not far from history of Oromo people in particular, and from that of Cush in general. To illustrate this fact with a concrete example, who was the warrior named Abraham Ashine (ashine means in Afaan Oromo: ‘we have begotten a child’), the man who bravely conquered and ruled certain parts of Arabia as the ancient Cushitic Ethiopia used to include, not only the areas in the north eastern Africa, but also some regions in Arabia? The issue of this hero, Abraham Ashine, must be researched and the role of the Oromo in ruling even this part of Arabia, including Yemen, must be rightly interpreted. Fact on the ground seems to show that the Yemenites and some other Asians themselves are Cushites and their tricolors, similar to that of Abbà-Gadà’s flag, show it all. Simply put, Oromo people could win for we understood our lost and real history. Oromo people fighting against our own history of the Cushites (Ethiopiawinet in its true sense = Kushawinet = Oromummà) was not as such constructive. The Agaw dynasty of Elalibela and even the Aksum history were not that of “Semitic” as usually told, but part and parcel of Cushitic kingdom. Can we really find ancient history that the Tigrayans did build in Aksum, which was not part of the Cushitic civilization? Let alone Abyssinian history, we can further say that parts of Arabian history are based mainly on Oromo’s (Cushitic) culture, because of the fact that Abraham Ashine, the warrior who conquered and ruled Arabia seems to be an Oromo in particular, and a Cushite in general. Interestingly, even the name of the continent Asia is said to be derived from this Oromo name Ashine, according to some recorded histories, legends or stories.
The more we dig deep, the bettee we know our real history and the best we can be in a position to charter our beneficial destiny. So let’s, Oromo nationalists, be sure that we are on the right line of understanding and interpreting our history and let’s look at the fact that, not only an independent Oromia of Russian-style, but also an integrative Oropia in a form of either English-style (federal union) or Indian-style (integrative Oropia) are the right goal, for which Oromo nationalists can fight. In summary, we can have these three (Oromian, Unionist & Oropian) positions to attack our main enemy, the oppressive Abyssinianist elites’ system of domination, which still acts against our Oromummaa by targeting specially Aadà-, Afàn-, Biyya-, Alàbà-, and Amantī-Oromo. Now, the very conscious harmonization of the three ideological positions in targeting our enemy in unison is alpha-and-omega of Oromo liberation movement in order to be successful in our struggle. It was nice that we used the goal of an independent Oromia to mobilize the Oromo fot liberation struggle. Now, we can use federal union during the transition, because of the still existing Amharic domination. In the future Oropia, integrative approach is appropriate for the wohle county will speak more Afàn Oromo than Amaric. May Wàqa help us, all Oromo nationalists, to cooperate with each other, coordinate our efforts and move in unison towards our objective of consolidating Oromo people’s freedom and choosing the beneficial type of Oromia’s sovereignty, be it in the form of Oromia or Union or Oropia. May He bless Oromia and the Oromo! As far as I am concerned, the goal of an independent Oromia was good in the past, the aim of federal Union is appropriate now and the vision of an integrative Oropia is beneficial in the future!
That is why I think that Oromo liberation movement had two wings and one middle-body as three important positions fighting the enemy. One wing wanted to change the whole Ethiopia, name the country as Oropia without specific Oromo state (kilil) and promote Afàn Oromo to a federal working language of the country; the middle-body wanted to establish an independent Oromia, which will have influential position in the whole Horn of Africa; another wing wanted to liberate Oromia within Oropia and make it to be the leading nation-state of the union. These three parts of Oromo liberation movement were trying to harmonize their moves against our common current enemy – the still existing system of domination. Accordingly, we did find Oromo movement in all spectrum of opposition parties and liberation fronts. Surprisingly there was no organization on ground to represent the whole movement coordinating and accommodating all the three parts. This reality persuaded us to think that Oromo liberation was inevitable, and the possible three types of Oromia’s sovereignty are not as such disadvantageous for Oromo people.
The three parts of our liberation movement were results of the three approaches we, Oromo nationals, do have towards our history. It seems that we are treating our history in three dimensions: (1) as only common proud history of Oromia and Abyssinia, such as Adwa Battle; (2) as only conflicting parallel history of Oromia and Abyssinia, such as Minilik invasion and the so-called Oromo expansion; (3) as both common proud history and conflicting parallel history of Oromia and Abyssinia. Now, we can see that consequences of the above three approaches are the three possible destinies regarding Oromian sovereignty. To achieve our freedom efficiently, despite these different views, we had to firstly try to fight together for our common agenda of freedom from the system of domination, and then settle to choose one of the following types of sovereignty based on the version of Oromo history we respectively have in mind. It is clear that:
– those, who tend to accept both the common proud part and the conflicting parallel part of our history, opt for liberation in English style. English people liberated themselves from 700 years rule of Roman empire, forged England as an autonomous region and united it with neighboring others to form British United Kingdom’; they promoted English to working language of the Kingdom. Can’t Oromia, being autonomous and free from alien forces, be united with neighboring autonomous regions to forge Oropian union, similar to that of British United Kingdom and promote Afàn Oromo to a primary working language of the union?
– those, who do perceive only the conflicting parallel history, prefer liberation in Russian style. Russian elites dismantled Soviet union and established Russian federation, which uses Russian national language, the federation which still does have influence on its neighboring nations, because of its economic and military strength. Does this way of dismantling the federal union and fostering the highly wished independent Oromia to have further influence over other liberated neighboring countries more advantageous than the other two types of sovereignty? Moreover, this type of sovereignty looks like favoring national independence without envisioning the possible regional integration.
– those, who do believe in only common proud history, tend to choose liberation of Oromia in Indian style. The Hindi people liberated all nations and nationalities in their region and named the whole country as India, made Hindi working language of Indian federation and, of course, divided national area of Hindi into multiple federal regions. Why not Oromo people liberate all nations and nationalities, call the whole country ‘Oropia’ and promote Afàn Oromo to primary working language of the federation, with historical local Odà’s of Oromia (Odà-Bisil, -Bulluqi, -Bultum, -Gaarres, -Makodi, -Nabee and -Rôbà) being future separate federal regions of the country?
All Oromo nationals are entitled to choose what ever we believe is the best for our nation; what matters, at last, is, of course, voice of the Oromo majority. I think Oromia’s self-rule and/or Oropia’s shared rule should be agenda of Oromo people now during the transition time, in contrast to federation or separation goal of Tigrayan elites. Interestingly, the three Abyssinianist groups (elites of Amara, Tigrai and Eritrea) have got only one option respectively in their political struggle: Amara elites can only sing about Indian-style for they know that Amarigna has a privilege to be federal language of the country; Eritrean elites, as minority at periphery, were so insecure to live within Oropia so they had only the alternative of separation (Russian-style); Tigrayan elites can neither have language privilege to opt for Indian-style nor the capacity to live alone as an independent nation in order to choose Russian-style, so they do stick to the English-style. But, the Oromo and Oromia, being majority and the center, can play all the three cards (English-, Russian- and Indian-styles) as long as rule of game in the region will be freedom and democracy. So, we, the Oromo people used our advantage and struggled with all pro-freedom and pro-democracy forces of Oropia against the system, to achieved Tour freedom and in order to come to the position of voting for one of the three options of Oromian sovereignty we have.
As far as I am concerned, all the three visions are not harmful, but the decision must be made by politically-conscious Oromo polity and Oromo public per referendum, when the time comes. This short essay is actually a bitter pill I wanted to present to Oromo foes, who were delighted by observing division of Oromo liberation front (the OLF). For their information, the OLF has got in its pocket, from the very beginning, only one goal of freedom, which, at the same time, could be interpreted as three types of sovereignty, and it played with these three cards of sovereignty based on the objective reality it was in, i.e. according to the “here and now” of the situations. Even though the only one aim of freedom is Oromo national self-determination, the three interpretations of the objective regarding the sovereignty are:
– self-rule of Oromia within shared rule of Oropia = internal self-determination of Oromo people,
– self-rule of Oromia without shared rule of Oropia = external self-determination of the Oromo, and
– Oropian citizens’ freedom to have referendum on this issue of external self-determination Vs. internal self-determination.
We know that the OLF permanently advocated for all the three: independence of Oromia, Oromo people’s right to self-determination, and union of free peoples in Oropia. It emphasized one of these three interpretations according to condition of the time (according to Zeitgeist). Whenever Abyssinianist elites became arrogant and started to sing about unconditional unity of their empire with suppression of Oromo’s national rights, it stressed the necessity of an independent republic of Oromia, of course, undermining the possible union. The logic behind this position was that whenever there is suppression, there is a move for separation. When some reasonable politicians from different nations in the empire started to recognize the God-given right of Oromo nation to self-determination, the OLF started to play card of self-determination, i.e. an appropriate decision per referendum either for external self-determination or for internal self-determination. Now, the one structural OLF, which Oromo nationals have believed to own, has been divided into three, each of the factions just taking as a goal one of the three interpretations of the objective regarding sovereignty of Oromia:
– OLF appears to have Oromo national self-determination as its goal, being open for both an external self-determination and an internal self-dtermination as far as Oromo majority will decide for one of the two.
– ONP tried to make no compromise on an external self-determination.
– ODF favors an internal self-determination of nations in Ethiopia; so it strived for a possible alliance with reasonable “pro-unity and democratic” Habesha opposition forces.
Anyways, bad news to foes of Oromo liberation movement was that the three organizations never gave up the struggle for right of Oromo nation to self-determination until Oromo people become determiners of our own destiny, be it within Oropian union or without the union. Otherwise, we differentiated the rhetoric from real conviction. We have heard certain Oromo politicians talking about the “fact” that Oromo people do not want “secession.” But, I do consider such talking about the Oromo wanting independence or not is a wrong generalization. One thing we need to know as fact is that almost all Oromo politicians (including those who do make the above mentioned rhetoric), deep in their hearts, believe in right of Oromo nation to self-determination. This is the hallmark of Oromo nationalists, and it is aim of our mindset (that of our spiritual organization, the OLF). This mindset has got only one aim of freedom with three interpretations regarding sovereignty, but it also does pursue the following three strategies with their respective rhetoric:
– the mindset in rebel organizations has got an explicit rhetoric of self-determination, i.e. in a form of national freedom, be it within or without a union, and it fought for this objective by all means,
– the mindset in opposition organizations has got rhetoric of struggling for liberation in only Ethiopian context, but it covertly struggled for the same goal of self-determination,
– the mindset in ruling organization has got rhetoric, which says: “we have already achieved the liberation,” but it also covertly pushed for the same and similar objective.
So, all our fellow Oromo nationals allowed this mindset move to the aim of freedom in all the three strategies, despite rhetoric of some Oromo nationalists in the opposition and in the ruling Oromo organizations. Our foes knew exactly that, despite the different rhetoric, Oromo liberation movement never be stopped till it achieved the goal of Oromo freedom, and noe Continuo the love towards any of Oromia’s sovereignty. We only needed to motivate ourselves just to make our respective rhetoric and to do our practice in liberation movement on the strategy each of us chose in order to come to the only one objective of self-determination. We forgot rhetoric of Oromo politicians in the ruling party and in opposition parties, who were doing their talks under gunpoint of the dictators (they were just denying right of Oromo people to self-determination at gunpoint), and we strived to achieve our goal, which was already determined by our mindset.
I was personally against any sort of dictatorial unity, and I am supporter of a possible union of free peoples in Oropia based on their free will. Any unity without Oromo’s public verdict will fail, take it only 1 year, about 10 years or as long as 100 years. That is why I do advocate for a lasting solution based on free will of all stakeholders, instead of wishy-washy solution. Some organizations seem to have chosen unconditional territorial integrity as a precondition for an alliance against the dictators, but the unity they do strive for will surely never last long, because it is not based on accepting self-determination of peoples, but based on predetermination of future fate of peoples by only few elites. The alliance against the regime, which was forged by the OLF et al. Was based on a solid ground by taking self-determination of nations, rather than unconditional unity of the country, as precondition for an alliance.
This way or that way, our foes need to know that, they can only manipulate and delay realization of Oromo’s right to self-determination, but they can never hinder it. Oromo’s mindset is still leading us to our only one goal, i.e. to self-determination of Oromo people. Our enemies like it or not, in reality, almost all Oromo nationalists are led in our liberation struggle by this mindset. That is why the International Crisis Group (ICG) wrote: “despite its organizational flaws and divisions, many ordinary Oromos retain an almost messianic belief in the OLF as major nationalist organization.” So, I would like to say: long live the OLF as a trinity (with only one aim of self-determination, but with three possible types of sovereignty to be achieved through three strategies accompanied by three rhetoric).
Just regarding some politically vigilant Oromo nationalists, I personally can understand when they refuse accepting the name Ethiopia as belonging to Oromo people, but we need to dig deep to come to facts that the name Ethiopia is not far from history of Oromo people in particular, and from that of Cush in general. To illustrate this fact with a concrete example, who was the warrior named Abraham Ashine (ashine means in Afaan Oromo: ‘we have begotten a child’), the man who bravely conquered and ruled certain parts of Arabia as the ancient Cushitic Ethiopia used to include, not only the areas in the north eastern Africa, but also some regions in Arabia? The issue of this hero, Abraham Ashine, must be researched and the role of the Oromo in ruling even this part of Arabia, including Yemen, must be rightly interpreted. Fact on the ground seems to show that the Yemenites and some other Asians themselves are Cushites and their tricolors, similar to that of Abbà-Gadà’s flag, show it all. Simply put, Oromo people could win for we understood our lost and real history. Oromo people fighting against our own history of the Cushites (Ethiopiawinet in its true sense = Kushawinet = Oromummà) was not as such constructive. The Agaw dynasty of Elalibela and even the Aksum history were not that of “Semitic” as usually told, but part and parcel of Cushitic kingdom. Can we really find ancient history that the Tigrayans did build in Aksum, which was not part of the Cushitic civilization? Let alone Abyssinian history, we can further say that parts of Arabian history are based mainly on Oromo’s (Cushitic) culture, because of the fact that Abraham Ashine, the warrior who conquered and ruled Arabia seems to be an Oromo in particular, and a Cushite in general. Interestingly, even the name of the continent Asia is said to be derived from this Oromo name Ashine, according to some recorded histories, legends or stories.
The more we dig deep, the bettee we know our real history and the best we can be in a position to charter our beneficial destiny. So let’s, Oromo nationalists, be sure that we are on the right line of understanding and interpreting our history and let’s look at the fact that, not only an independent Oromia of Russian-style, but also an integrative Oropia in a form of either English-style (federal union) or Indian-style (integrative Oropia) are the right goal, for which Oromo nationalists can fight. In summary, we can have these three (Oromian, Unionist & Oropian) positions to attack our main enemy, the oppressive Abyssinianist elites’ system of domination, which still acts against our Oromummaa by targeting specially Aadà-, Afàn-, Biyya-, Alàbà-, and Amantī-Oromo. Now, the very conscious harmonization of the three ideological positions in targeting our enemy in unison is alpha-and-omega of Oromo liberation movement in order to be successful in our struggle. It was nice that we used the goal of an independent Oromia to mobilize the Oromo fot liberation struggle. Now, we can use federal union during the transition, because of the still existing Amharic domination. In the future Oropia, integrative approach is appropriate for the wohle county will speak more Afàn Oromo than Amaric. May Wàqa help us, all Oromo nationalists, to cooperate with each other, coordinate our efforts and move in unison towards our objective of consolidating Oromo people’s freedom and choosing the beneficial type of Oromia’s sovereignty, be it in the form of Oromia or Union or Oropia. May He bless Oromia and the Oromo! As far as I am concerned, the goal of an independent Oromia was good in the past, the aim of federal Union is appropriate now and the vision of an integrative Oropia is beneficial in the future!