Oromummà as Thesis, Amaranet as Antithesis, and Ethopummà/Ethiopiawinet as Synthesis
By Fayyis Oromia*
It is now becoming clear that Oromummà represents the original identity of the major nations in Ethiopia—both the “Habeshanized” and the non-Habeshanized. That is why Oromummà can be seen as the Thesis in the dialectic of Ethiopian identity. Then came a new identity around 1270 with the emergence of Amarigna as the language of the Christian kingdom’s ruling class. Since that time, Amaranet has grown as an Antithesis to Oromummà, rising at its expense and often camouflaged as Ethiopiawinet. Thus, Ethiopiawinet has long been equated with Amaranet.
Amhara elites and the Amharanized others—including Dr. Abiy and his administration—have sought to maintain this status quo under the pretext of preserving Ethiopian unity. But the content of Ethiopiawinet, long defined solely by Amaranet, needs to change. It must reflect the country’s existing national identities: for instance, 40% Oromummà, 20% Agawinet, 10% Amaranet, 6% Somalummà, 5% Tegarunet, 4% Sidamummà, and so on. This also implies that Afaan Oromo must be adopted as the primary working language of the federation.
Dr. Abiy and his administration have failed to realize this noble Oromo vision, thus losing the support of the Oromo people. However, the OLF and OFC may still carry the torch, taking responsibility at the Caffé Ararà Palace and working toward a rainbow Ethiopia led by Oromummà. Such an Ethiopia—multicultural, multilingual, and rooted in Ethopummà—would be a true Synthesis born from both Oromummà and Amaranet, and inclusive of all national identities.
The Oromo Role: From Resistance to Leadership
The Oromo have embraced Oromummà in the pursuit of liberation, and now turn to Ethiopiawinet to take leadership of the country. It is time for Oromo elites to emphasize a more inclusive form of Ethiopiawinet, one that accommodates all nations under Oromo leadership. The transition from the ODP to the EPP was not a misstep—however, Dr. Abiy must now dismantle Amaranet dominance in the palace, bureaucracy, and parliament. Immediate elevation of Afaan Oromoas a federal working language is essential.
Understanding the Identity Conflict
The discourse surrounding Ethiopian and Oromo nationalism—online and in real-life communities—continues to unfold. A notable moment came during a virtual conference involving several political leaders and scholars, including Dr. Bayàn Asôbà of the Oromo Democratic Front (ODF). His moderate stance offered a potential middle ground for pro-independence, pro-federation, and pro-unity camps alike.
Dr. Fikre Tolossa responded with an open letter, urging Dr. Bayàn to embrace Ethiopian identity and advocate for the country’s territorial integrity. Dr. Fikre argued that Ethiopia, at its core, belongs to the Oromo—asserting they ruled the region for over 3,000 years.
In response, some Oromo nationalists raised a powerful question: “If Ethiopia truly belongs to the Oromo, why not rename the country Oromia?” This sparked debates on various platforms, including Paltalk. During this period, Jawar Mohammed’s now-famous statement on Al Jazeera’s The Stream—“I am first Oromo; Ethiopia is imposed on me”—intensified the divide. Since then, both conservative unionists and TPLF supporters have criticized Jawar and Oromo nationalism. Thus, the ideological rift between Ethiopian nationalism and Oromo nationalism has continued to deepen.
The Many Meanings of ‘Ethiopia’
To clarify which Ethiopia we refer to, it’s useful to consider various definitions:
- For ancient Greeks, Ethiopia meant the land of those with “burnt faces”—essentially all of Africa.
- For Biblical Jews, it was the land of Cush, south of Egypt.
- For the international community, it is the present-day state in the Horn of Africa.
- Scholars like Prof. Megalommatis view it as non-Abyssinian Cushland.
- Abyssinian elites define Ethiopia as Abyssinia.
- Conservative politicians equate Ethiopia with Amhara identity.
- For the TPLF, Ethiopia is merely a mask for their power.
This confusion is mirrored in the Oromo liberation movement. Some Oromo nationalists view Ethiopia as the modern state where Oromia is located—thus, the phrase “Oromia in Ethiopia” is not contradictory. Others, however, see Ethiopia as synonymous with Abyssinia, a colonial neighbor that forcefully occupied Oromia. For them, any reference to Oromia within Ethiopia is inherently flawed.
From Conflict to Resolution
Conflict—whether personal or political—must be approached with a focus on resolution. A more suitable term for political disagreements may be “controversy,” which centers on opinion, while “conflict” often involves deeper contradictions of interest.
The conflict in Ethiopia is not biological or merely interpersonal; it is ideological—a clash between Abyssinian nationalism (pseudo-Ethiopian) and Oromo nationalism (true-Ethiopian or Cushitic). This is not like the class-based struggles in [deleted] Western nations. It is a clash between nations within a multinational state.
Abyssinian elites, driven by an ideology of domination, despotism, and centralism, have long oppressed Oromo identity—its language (Afaan Oromoo), culture (Àdà Oromô), and religion (Wàqeffannà). These elites are not rejected for their bloodline, but for their politics—an ideology akin to colonization, cloaked in the borrowed glory of the name “Ethiopia.”
Reclaiming ‘Ethiopia’ for Cush and Oromo
True Ethiopian identity must be liberated from Abyssinian content and re-filled with Cushitic values—freedom, democracy, and spiritual heritage. Just as Judaism defines Israel, Wàqeffannà defines the spiritual heart of true Ethiopia.
Though the name “Ethiopia” has been contaminated by repressive forces, Oromo nationalists need not abandon it. Instead, they should reclaim and purify it. After all, Ethiopia (as Cushland) belongs to the Oromo and other Cushitic nations, not to those who simply usurped its name.
The metaphor is clear: two bottles labeled “apple juice”—one filled with poison, one with real juice. Both look the same, but only one nourishes. Similarly, Ethiopia filled with Abyssinian nationalism is toxic; Ethiopia filled with Oromo nationalism is constructive and nourishing.
Toward a True Synthesis: Oromia or Oropia?
Some may accuse this approach of being overly “Ethiopianist.” But there is no contradiction in considering both an Independent Oromia or a united, Oromo-led Oropia. The decision between the two should be left to the Oromo public.
Let Oromo nationalists stop fighting among themselves and unite for the shared goal: freedom from oppressive Abyssinian nationalism. Internal division weakens us; unity will strengthen us.
The conflict between Abyssinian pseudo-Ethiopia and Oromian true-Ethiopia is irreconcilable. But the future union of free nations, under true Ethiopian nationalism—Cush identity—is not only possible but desirable.
Final Thought
We must distinguish between two Ethiopiawinets:
- Habeshawinet (Abyssinian nationalism) – repressive and imperial.
- Kushawinet (true Ethiopian nationalism) – inclusive, democratic, and Oromo-centered.
Ethopummà, as the synthesis of Oromummà, Amaranet, and other national identities, is a vision worth pursuing. May Wàqà help us!
Galatoomaa!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2020/06/0 ... synthesis/