We Are All Ethiopians (Descendants of Ham – Kush – Ethiop) Speaking Different Languages; None Is Semitic!
By Fayyis Oromia*
I dare to embrace the mythology that tells us we are all Ethiopians, descendants of Ham – Kush – Ethiop. It is said that Ethiop (Et’el) came from Kana’an to this region, and his descendants are now spread all over the continent. Actually, the original name of the continent was Ethiopia, while the name Africa was given by the Roman Empire. There is no Semitic nation in Ethiopia, except for some genetic mixing due to popular migrations in various directions.
Unfortunately, the name Ethiopia was tainted by past oppressive regimes who tried to alienate the Oromo and labeled the people as “barbaric invaders of the 16th century.” No wonder we hated this name and fought against the oppressors. Now, we are free to some extent, except that Dr. Abiy’s regime is not yet fully loyal to the Oromo cause. Despite this mistrust, we can now reclaim the name Ethiopia and use it to signify a colorful, multilingual rainbow country to which we all can identify ourselves. Ethiopia can be our common home, speaking Afàn Oromô primarily. Being Ethiopian can be our shared identity, and all the languages of the country can belong to all of us. In the long run, we can even rename Africa as Ethiopia.
There is no question that slowly but surely, the rainbow Ethiopiawinet, led by Oromummà, is flourishing. Currently, progress is slow due to a lack of dedication from the prosperous Oromos in power. This will change in the near future when Oromo republicans take over the mission. To realize such an Oromummà-led rainbow Ethiopiawinet, Oromo elites should consolidate power in Finfinne Palace and promote Afàn Oromô as the primary language of the federation.
The Oromo hate the previous Ethiopawinet (Ethiopianness) because it equated to only Amaranet. As long as Amarigna dominates the country, Amaranet will continue to dominate Ethiopiawinet. That is why Amara elites always sing about Ethiopiawinet. Thanks to the OLF, this trend has been changing since the 1960s. The influence of Oromiffà/Oromummà is growing slowly but surely, despite attempts by the prosperous Oromos led by Dr. Abiy to maintain Amaranet domination at the expense of Oromummà.
It is an open secret that Ob. Lénco Latà is behind all the political calculations practiced by Dr. Abiy Ahmed. It is also publicly known that Ob. Léncô Bàti is the PM’s leading advisor. The only unsolved puzzle is why they tolerate ongoing Amaranet domination at the expense of legitimate Oromummà leadership. One positive aspect of the war against TPLF is that it permanently removed the hegemonist Tegaru elites from political competition in Finfinne Palace. Then, only two major forces remain: the Amara dictators with their supportive PAE/pro-Amharanet elites, and the Oromo properitans led by the POE/pro-Oromummà elites, fighting for power.
The POE, i.e., republican Oromo, need to foster a rainbow Ethiopiawinet with a proportional composition of roughly 40% Oromummà, 20% Agawnet, 10% Amaranet, 6% Somalummà, 5% Tegarunet, 4% Sidamummà, etc.
The question now is: whom will Dr. Abiy promote after the victory over TPLF? The Amaranet bloc or the Oromummà camp? Which language will be the future primary working language of Ethiopia: Amarigna or Oromiffà? The rhetoric of using both languages equally is practically impossible. Dr. Abiy will be obliged to choose either to keep Amarigna’s domination or promote Oromiffà to the leading position. If he chooses the first, that is equivalent to building Ethiopia as Amapia (Amaranet-dominated Ethiopia), which means he will be seen as a foolish Oromo leader. If he chooses the second, that is tantamount to fostering Ethiopia as Oropia (Oromummà-led Ethiopia), which will earn him recognition as a smart Oromo leader.
It doesn’t matter whether the administrative structure will be geo-federalism or ethnic federation. Making Oromiffà the primary language or blocking it from attaining this status will be the litmus test to decide whether Dr. Abiy will be considered a smart or foolish Oromo leader.
When I see Abesha elites celebrating and Oromo nationals mourning the consequences of the steps taken by Dr. Abiy Ahmed—especially regarding the crackdown on genuine Oromo nationalists—I dare to ask: who is he? A smart foe or a foolish friend of the Oromo? He must be one of these two, as he turned the victory of the Oromo struggle to futility.
I was one of the deceived Oromos who believed we were liberated when Abiy became PM of Ethiopia in 2018. He and his family entered the palace wearing Oromo attire, but now the palace is dominated by Amarigna and Amharanet elites related to his wife. How could he betray the Oromo so, if he was truly struggling for Oromo, as he tried to convince us? Was he a smart foe who effectively infiltrated the Oromo camp to sabotage our struggle from the very beginning? Or is he a foolish Oromo, influenced by the “religion of love,” naively manipulated to be instrumentalized by [ deleted ] Abesha elites who fooled him and usurped our victory?
Regardless, whether he is a smart foe or foolish friend, aluta continua—the Oromo shall prevail, and he will be recorded on the dark pages of our history.
Another important question is: how can we fix the gridlock between the prosperous Oromo elites led by Dr. Abiy and the republican Oromo elites with the OLF mindset of Bilisumma? I once appealed to Oromo websites to help fix such gridlocks in our liberation movement. Thanks to Waaqa, we have increasingly practiced “ilaa fi ilaamee” (reasoning with each other according to Oromo tradition) to solve our problems.
The longing and push for unity among Oromo activists from every walk of life has been expressed in many ways: articles, music, poems, theater, etc. We have done this because we know unity is the alpha and omega for the success of our liberation struggle. So, we loudly spoke, pressured politicians, and tried to persuade them to unite for freedom.
In response, our polity reacted differently: for example, the merger of OFC and the OLF’s ongoing re-unification process. These were encouraging news for Oromo friends and a blow to our foes. Such moves toward Oromo unity caused varied reactions from individuals, websites, and institutions. Some applauded, while others criticized.
An interesting opposition came from a renowned Oromo friend, Professor Megalommatis, in an article posted on the Oromo Exiled Parliamentarians’ website. His main criticism was directed at one of my articles titled: “If United, We Can Make a Difference Even in the Horn.” His critical response was:
“…This ‘unity’ or ‘union’ is truly the Oromos’ last need and concern. Diffusing the idea that today’s Oromos need to unite to achieve liberation is an effort to avert this development. National liberation and revolution do not need ‘union’ to be realized; what is needed is dynamics of all its parts…”
Professor Megalommatis argued that dynamics must be prioritized over unity. He explained dynamics as follows:
“…Identity preservation is the supreme right of every person and nation. At the practical level, if a nation has not achieved self-determination, this means rightful revolution and secession. These two concepts are based on one reality: dynamics.
The creation of Oromo Liberation Dynamics.
Only the dynamics of a concept (plan, action) can generate a revolution and impose irrevocable defeat on the cruel forces of barbaric Abyssinian oppressors. Certainly, the nature of dynamics differs according to place and time.
Dynamics is based on:
a) well-calculated force,
b) determined performers, and
c) premeditated, well-planned actions.
Dynamics may sometimes involve mass participation, but this is secondary; force—well-calculated force—is what matters. This means that a small group of five Oromos, all unknown publicly but who have developed a liberation plan involving well-calculated force, determination, and premeditated, well-planned actions, can achieve much more than thousands of Oromos participating in ineffective liberation fronts and movements.
Dynamics does not require agreement from numerous participants, who are mostly a liability. There is no need for analyses, considerations, discussions, or deliberations. Dynamics is produced by a few people, one thought, absolute determination, and the correct plan.
But the rightful decision to launch dynamics is a totally free process that belongs to everyone. Nothing in the world can prevent any Oromo from launching dynamics to destroy the criminal state ‘Ethiopia.’ Every law in this colonial tyranny is rubbish; every ruler and administrator is a gangster; they have no value…
And this is the right of every revolution; this is how America was liberated, Mexico achieved independence, and Brazil came to exist…”
My question to the professor was: why did he equate unity with a lack of dynamics, inaction, or apathy? Can’t we have both unity and dynamics? Why is unity seen as a vice rather than a virtue that can help achieve the Oromo people’s right to self-determination? I personally advocate not for inactive unity but for a very dynamic and efficient one. Did this make me delusional, as the professor or his apparently Oromo assistant tried to portray me?
Despite such notions against Oromo unity, we heard many voices rejoicing over the politicians’ move towards unity for freedom. Leaving aside responses from individuals and institutions for Oromo readers to judge, I focused on responses from two Oromo websites, Gadaa.com and Bilisummaa.com, which exemplify two different approaches to the issue.
Gadaa.com’s approach was summarized under the title it gave to the discussion: “ilaa fi ilaamee,” characterized by its emphasis on promoting unity, mainly expressed in the subtitle: “Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.” Its publications were solution-oriented, which was a helpful support to our efforts in fixing the gridlock.
In contrast, Bilisummaa.com emphasized the perceived or real conflict between two “contradictory” camps in the Oromo liberation movement: “conflict” between “pro-Ethiopian democratization” and “pro-Oromian decolonization” nationalists. Its approach was summarized cynically in Afàn Oromo:
“Yaanni yeroo dheeraaf mooraa qabsoo jeequu fi shakkiin qabsaawoota adda facaasuu dhaan, dhaabni dhaaba dhaluu fi walirratti duuluu malee, diina/nyaapha ajjeesee Oromoo garaa qabbaneessuu dadhabe, kunoo yeroo ammaa ifatti fi ummatatti as bahee mata duree miidiyaa/sabaahimaa Oromoo tahee jira jedhu…”
Not only was there a cynical comment, but Bilisummaa.com posted pictures dividing Oromo politicians into two groups: those in Oromia’s map and those in Ethiopia’s (Oropia’s) map, suggesting those in Oromia’s map were “true Oromo nationalists” and those in Oropia’s map were “false Oromo nationalists who were Ethiopianists.” To my knowledge, those placed in the Oropian map were not Ethiopianists per se. Oromo Ethiopianists are those who do not accept or believe in Oromia’s right to exist—whether as autonomy in the Ethiopian context or independence, with or without union of free peoples. Oromo who support only autonomy, “disregarding” complete independence, are true Oromianists, just like those who demand independence by any means. The only difference between these two Oromo nationalist camps depicted by Bilisummaa.com was their differing views on the possible outcome of Oromo self-determination (autonomy in Ethiopian context vs. independence without or within a union of free peoples).
The approaches of these two websites are classic examples of the differing approaches among Oromo individuals and institutions in our community. Gadaa.com represents those who have identified our problems but focus on walking, talking, and writing solutions. Such individuals and institutions are productive in fixing the gridlock. Bilisummaa.com represents those who merely revolve around problems and are too cynical to suggest solutions, creating more disunity than unity. The question remains: were they doing this unintentionally as “foolish friends” or intentionally as “smart foes”?
Thanks to Qarre fi Qeerro—the exemplary dynamics in Oromo politics—we are now on the verge of liberation from Abyssinian domination to exercise our sovereignty regarding the future of Oromia (Oromia vs. Oropia)! But first, we must get rid of Abiy’s Neo-Naftagna regime, which is surely either a smart foe or foolish friend of the Oromo. I hope the prosperous Oromos in OPP will come to their senses and promote Oromummà to its legitimate leading position in the new rainbow Ethiopianness of about 80 colors (nations) under Amaranet domination.
May Waaqa help us!
Galatôma!
Read more:https://orompia.wordpress.com/2020/08/31/xxxx-2/
Re: We Are All Ethiopians (Descendants of Ham – Kush – Ethiop) Speaking Different Languages; None Is Semitic!
You gallas are so dumb Cush was the son of Ham, and both Ham and Shem were sons of Noah brothers by blood. By that account, Cush, Shem, and their descendants belong to the same familial line. Thus, any effort to elevate one lineage over another, or to draw rigid distinctions between them, is inherently flawed.
Moreover, the modern classification of ethnic groups such as the Amhara and Tigrayans as “Cushitic” is not only historically tenuous but also politically motivated. It is an attempt to appropriate an identity that does not rightly belong to them. The distinction between “Cushitic” and “Semitic” peoples, as it is often applied today, owes more to colonial era ethnographic constructions than to any genuine historical or cultural continuity.
The Kingdom of Cush had its heartland in what is now Sudan and extended into parts of ancient Egypt. It has no credible historical or cultural connection to the peoples of the Ethiopian highlands or to the gallas The true descendants of the Cushite civilisation are far more plausibly found among the Beja and other indigenous populations of northeastern Sudan.
To claim a heritage that is not one's own is both a distortion of history and an affront to those whose ancestry genuinely traces back to the ancient Cushite realm.
Dr Zackovich
Moreover, the modern classification of ethnic groups such as the Amhara and Tigrayans as “Cushitic” is not only historically tenuous but also politically motivated. It is an attempt to appropriate an identity that does not rightly belong to them. The distinction between “Cushitic” and “Semitic” peoples, as it is often applied today, owes more to colonial era ethnographic constructions than to any genuine historical or cultural continuity.
The Kingdom of Cush had its heartland in what is now Sudan and extended into parts of ancient Egypt. It has no credible historical or cultural connection to the peoples of the Ethiopian highlands or to the gallas The true descendants of the Cushite civilisation are far more plausibly found among the Beja and other indigenous populations of northeastern Sudan.
To claim a heritage that is not one's own is both a distortion of history and an affront to those whose ancestry genuinely traces back to the ancient Cushite realm.
Dr Zackovich