Oromo Elites Always Rule Ethiopia: by the Habeshized in the Past, the Hybridized Currently and the Horomized in the Future!
Ob. Leenco Lataa tells us that, now, the Oromo are ruling Ethiopia. I argue that Oromo elites always ruled, but Oromummà never led Ethiopia. Nothing is new about Dr. Abiy. He is not different from his predecesdors regarding the leadership of Oromummà. He chose revering Amaranet, as dominating element of Ethiopiawinet, instead of respecting Oromummà and promoting it to the leading component of Ethiopiawinet. It is fact on the ground that Oromo elites including the Amaranized Er. Menelik and the non-Amaranized Dr. Abiy ruled Ethiopia by promoting Amaranet at the cost of Oromummà. That is why the Oromo are cursing the first and mistrusting the second. Otherwise, it is good that a lot of Oromo elites are reclaiming the flag, history and name of Ethiopia, for which the Oromo paid a lot in history. In every thing about Oropia (Oromumma led Ethiopia), the Oromo have lion’s share. All figures demonstrated in the new “unity park” show about the Oromo. We like it or not, almost all the rulers from Yekuno to Abiy are Oromo; just dig deep and de-Habeshanize the history. There was no Amara rule per se, but rule of Amaranized Oromo promoting Amaranet at the cost of Oromummà. Thanks to the OLF, the trend is slowly but surely reversed. From now on, Oromo elites promoting Oromummà in Caffé Aràrà (the palace), Finfinné, Ethiopia and in the Horn will rule the country. Thus, simply put, Ethiopia was, is and will be ruled by Oromo elites: by the Habeshanized ones in the past, by the Hybridised ones currently and surely by the Horomonized ones (those, who put Oromo’s interest first) in the future.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2020/05/0 ... oromummaa/
Oromo El. Always Rule Ethiopia: by the Habeshized in the Past, the Hybridized Currently and the Horomized in the Future
Last edited by OPFist on 11 Feb 2025, 14:51, edited 5 times in total.
Re: Ethiopia Always Ruled by Oromo: by the Habeshized in the Past, the Hybridized Currently and the Horomized in the Fut
In case we decide for Oropia in the future, then we shall promote: 1. Afan Oromo to working language of the union; 2. Cushitic Black-Red-White to flag of the union; and 3. Oropia, instead of Ethiopia, to name of the union. This is the still ongoing slogan of some Oromo nationals in their discourse we always listen and read. It is a known fact that the Oromo national liberation movement has got an objective of three alternative types of sovereignty, which will be fostered after the already achieved freedom from the system of domination. The objectives are an independent Oromia as planned by the OLF, a federal Union with self-rule of Oromia as opted by OFC and an integrative Oropia (democratic Ethiopia) without Oromia as has been entertained by Meison. This is a simplistic way of attributing the three objectives to these organizations, respectively, for we also do read in the mission statement of the OLF:“The fundamental objective of Oromo liberation movement is to exercise Oromo people’s inalienable right to national self-determination to terminate century of oppression and exploitation, and to form, where possible, political union with other nations on the basis of equality, respect for mutual interests and the principle of voluntary associations. … OLF’s commitment to this objective is based on democratic principle, that the Oromo people are endowed with right to decide the type of sovereignty they want to live under and the type of political union they want to form with other peoples. … In fact, the OLF and Oromo people are committed to the noble cause of laying foundation for union of free peoples on the basis of their freely expressed will.”As shown in this statement, even OLF is committed to forge “political union where possible.” The OFC already put in its program that it struggles for “multi-national federation within Ethiopia.”
The difference I do see between the two approaches is: OFC gave the name Ethiopia to the union it will build and specified the type of union being multi-national federation, whereas OLF kept the possible name of the union and type of the union open for future decisions. Just looking at the last sentence of OLF’s mission statement, is it possible to consider that OFC is an agent to accomplish the message in the sentence? If yes, then why should we be as such worried about the two different approaches to the same goal of freedom? For OFC and OLF to be explicitly on the same page, it is necessary that the OLF names the future possible union as Oropia and that the OFC changes the name of the union it wants to foster from Ethiopia to Oropia. Ob. Ibsaa Guutama put in one of his articles that it is already written in the original program of the OLF that the objective of its struggle is “….where possible to foster political union with other neighbouring nations.”
This same expression is still in mission statement of the Front. When we look at the statements of all Oromo organizations, there are two main principles in Oromo national liberation struggle: (1) concerning means of struggle: where possible nonviolent struggle – otherwise, armed struggle for freedom; (2) regarding end of the struggle: where possible political union – otherwise, national independence after freedom. Based on this principle, the OFC chose nonviolent struggle and political union; whereas the OLF opted for armed struggle and national independence. But, as a nation, the Oromo should have combined both armed struggle and nonviolent struggle to achieve our freedom. The question of independence (OLF) vs union (OFC) vs integration (Meison) will be answered per referendum after freedom.
According to programs of these three lines of thought, a possible union with free neighbouring nations is not excluded. The goal of exclusive independent own state is an appropriate solution for certain minority at the periphery – like Tigrai nation, and an autonomous own state within the Ethiopian union is optimal for any minority at the center – for example, Gurage nation. Parallel to this, an independent Oromia as solution by default considers Oromo nation as a minority at the periphery, whereas Oromian autonomy within union Ethiopia puts the Oromo in a category of minority at the center. These two solutions seem to be not optimal for Oromo nation, which is majority in the whole country. Oromo’s condition as a colonized majority at political center of the country was unique situation – which needed a correspondingly unique solution. Finfinne (political center of the Oromo) being brain and heart of the country as well as that of future union, a lasting and proper solution for the Oromo better be Oropia. What does this concept mean?
Oropia is a modified Indian model of sovereignty: the Hindi people liberated themselves together with all nations and nationalities in their region, and named the whole country as India, made Hindi working language of Indian federation and, of course, they divided national area of Hindi into multiple federal regions. Why not Oromo people be liberated together with the whole nations and nationalities in Abyssinian empire, call the whole country ‘Oropia’ and promote Afan Oromo to working language of the federation, with historical local Odaa’s of Oromia (Odaa-Bisil, -Bultum, -Gaarres, -Makodi, -Nabee and -Roobaa) as the future separate federal regions of the country? I think it will be almost impossible to divide the current nominally existing Oromia into such Odaa’s in order to foster Oropia without Oromia, thus it is possible to have Oromo national area (Oromia) as an autonomous “Oromo Regional State” within the future Oropia. That is why the concept Oropia is said to be a modified form of Indian model sovereignty; whereas Ethiopia is the unmodified version.
This idea of Oropia is synthesis of the two existing post-freedom sovereignty – that of independent Oromia and union Ethiopia. Why is this synthesis necessary now? I think the aim independent Oromia has got a sort of international obstacle from most neighbouring nations as well as from the international community, and the objective union Ethiopia is facing an internal objection from Oromo nationalists. That is why our leaders were getting difficulty to openly sell the idea of independent Oromia to the diplomatic community; so they usually speak about self-determination, freedom and democracy, instead of clearly telling that “we want to foster an independent Oromia.” At the same time, unionist Oromo nationalists are facing problem in getting support from the Oromo, who have been told for the last 40 years that “Ethiopia is the system to be dismantled, thus we need to reject also the name Ethiopia.”
Accordingly, those with the agenda of union Ethiopia are usually labelled by the pro-independence nationalists as “enemy of Oromo struggle.” Can we change the name Ethiopia in “union Ethiopia” to Oropia and replace the independence goal in an “independent Oromia” by a union and just synthesize from these two goals a ‘Union Oropia’? In this synthesis, clearly Oromia will be in the U.N. in the form of an inclusive union, instead of “exclusive independence.” Such combination of the two objectives into one synthesis can help us reduce the internal Oromo conflicts and the international concern about the fate of the region. Just as Union Oropia is the good synthesis of both an independent Oromia and union Ethiopia, the attempt of keeping the status quo – the imperial Ethiopia – by Abyssinian elites from both Amhara and Tigrai nations, is anti-thesis of the two.
In short: Imperial Ethiopia =====> Union Ethiopia vs Independent Oromia ——-> Union Oropia
I once wrote an article showing the importance of naming, which is the main factor of identifying certain nation: http://gadaa.com/oduu/20240/2013/06/15/ … entifying/. Such naming of the future union as Oropia solves the conflict between the pro-independence fronts and pro-unity forces: we will have both the desired independence and the required unity, if the other nations accept this recommendation as a compromise solution. As far as the Oromo-proper is concerned, we renamed our nation from “Galla” to Oromo and our capital city from Addisaba to Finfinne without waiting for any permission or recognition from anyone else. So, why not we rename the country from Ethiopia to Oropia? Anybody can call the country either Abyssinia or Ethiopia, but Oromo people should unanimously agree to call it from now on as Oropia. That country is neither land of the mixed (Abyssinia) as the Portuguese called it nor the land of the burnt face (Ethiopia) as the Greeks named it, but it is the land of the brave (Oropia) as both Oromo-proper and Oromo-progeny (other Cushitic nations as offshots from the Oromo) call ourselves. Such Cushitic Oromia, in which freedom of citizens, liberty of nations, genuine democracy, justice and human rights are respected, will be our future common home, if other nations in the empire voluntarily accept and endorse this suggestion.
If Oromo neighbours are not ready to accept Union Oropia, they are the ones who should seek an aknowledgemnet from Oromo or Oromia and ask recognition from the international community to get their own independence. Oromo national liberation struggle of both OPP and OLF lines need to focus on how to get state power in Caffee Araaraa palace of Finfinne as well as give such offer of Union Oromia for others to stay with us, if they want. Does OPP of Dr. Abiy have this power now or is it simply a window dressing for the TPLF domination? If yes, this is a union in our own terms, which can benefit the Oromo and others. It is a bit similar to the opinion of Ob. Baaroo Tumsaa, given 40 years ago, where he suggested: “we, the Oromo, must capture state power by any means necessary. In order to do this, we must clandestinely organize all sectors of our society. It is responsibility of the young educated Oromo like you, to disseminate the spirit of Oromo nationalism when you return to your respective communities. We can only change the deplorable condition of our people by being tolerant to one another and reestablishing a necessary Oromo national unity. In this way, we can build a strong organization, capture state power and take actions that facilitate fundamental social transformation.”
I would like to suggest an implementation of the following five points in phase of “taking actions that will facilitate transformation”: (1) freedom of citizens and nations in the union; (2) Afan Oromo as a working language of the union; (3) democracy as rule of game in the union; (4) Oromia as name of the union; and (5) the Cushitic Black-Red-White as flag of the union. If all our neighbouring nations are interested in living with the Oromo in a common home (union), they have to take this offer seriously; otherwise, I think the birth of an independent Oromia is inevitable and this surely will divide the present empire at least into four: North Ethiopia, Ogadenia, Oromia and South Ethiopia. As far as the Oromo are concerned, and putting it metaphorically, Union Oromia or Oropia is the same as gross salary, while an independent Oromia is similar to net salary of certain professional. In case other nations reject this offer from the Oromo and go their way to be our neighbour states, we will have our independent Oromia with its capital city Finfinne, just like Russia with its Moscow was left behind as other states of Soviet Union decided for their independence as well as like Serbia and its Belgrade had the same fate during disintegration of Yugoslavia.
In short, both the pro-union and pro-independence Oromo nationalists can consider Union Oropia as common synthetic objective to be told boldly and clearly both internally to our people as well as internationally to others, so that we can unanimously struggle per nonviolent struggle and/or armed struggle to liberate our nation from the 130 years of subjugation. This approach of the Oromo as a majority in the whole country can have a lesser obstacle from internal national friction and milder rejection from international stakeholders of the Horn region. Is this synthesis helpful to promote an indispensable unity of purpose among Oromo nationalists and an important alliance with other anti-TPLF forces, so that we can have effective and efficient force against our main foe – the currently ruling regime of Abyssinian empire? I hope this attempt of seeking common focus for all Oromo liberation forces will be developed further by others with better ideas. After all, Ethiopia was formed, forged and fostered by the blood and bone of Oromo heroines and heroes. Now it is up to the Oromo to reclaim, reform and rename it, if necessary. Is Dr. Abiy leading us to this direction? The writer of this opinion is ready to hear and read all possible – be it negative or positive – feedbacks. But, now being free from Abesha’s system of domination, the Oromo can even reclaim the flag (green-gold-red), Ethiopian history and the name Ethiopia. The Oromo have contributed a lot in making the three (flag, history and name of Ethiopia) famous. May Waaqa help us in the empire/region to foster the common home as suggested here – Union Oropia with Ethnofederation or Oropia with Ethiofederation!
Galatôma
The difference I do see between the two approaches is: OFC gave the name Ethiopia to the union it will build and specified the type of union being multi-national federation, whereas OLF kept the possible name of the union and type of the union open for future decisions. Just looking at the last sentence of OLF’s mission statement, is it possible to consider that OFC is an agent to accomplish the message in the sentence? If yes, then why should we be as such worried about the two different approaches to the same goal of freedom? For OFC and OLF to be explicitly on the same page, it is necessary that the OLF names the future possible union as Oropia and that the OFC changes the name of the union it wants to foster from Ethiopia to Oropia. Ob. Ibsaa Guutama put in one of his articles that it is already written in the original program of the OLF that the objective of its struggle is “….where possible to foster political union with other neighbouring nations.”
This same expression is still in mission statement of the Front. When we look at the statements of all Oromo organizations, there are two main principles in Oromo national liberation struggle: (1) concerning means of struggle: where possible nonviolent struggle – otherwise, armed struggle for freedom; (2) regarding end of the struggle: where possible political union – otherwise, national independence after freedom. Based on this principle, the OFC chose nonviolent struggle and political union; whereas the OLF opted for armed struggle and national independence. But, as a nation, the Oromo should have combined both armed struggle and nonviolent struggle to achieve our freedom. The question of independence (OLF) vs union (OFC) vs integration (Meison) will be answered per referendum after freedom.
According to programs of these three lines of thought, a possible union with free neighbouring nations is not excluded. The goal of exclusive independent own state is an appropriate solution for certain minority at the periphery – like Tigrai nation, and an autonomous own state within the Ethiopian union is optimal for any minority at the center – for example, Gurage nation. Parallel to this, an independent Oromia as solution by default considers Oromo nation as a minority at the periphery, whereas Oromian autonomy within union Ethiopia puts the Oromo in a category of minority at the center. These two solutions seem to be not optimal for Oromo nation, which is majority in the whole country. Oromo’s condition as a colonized majority at political center of the country was unique situation – which needed a correspondingly unique solution. Finfinne (political center of the Oromo) being brain and heart of the country as well as that of future union, a lasting and proper solution for the Oromo better be Oropia. What does this concept mean?
Oropia is a modified Indian model of sovereignty: the Hindi people liberated themselves together with all nations and nationalities in their region, and named the whole country as India, made Hindi working language of Indian federation and, of course, they divided national area of Hindi into multiple federal regions. Why not Oromo people be liberated together with the whole nations and nationalities in Abyssinian empire, call the whole country ‘Oropia’ and promote Afan Oromo to working language of the federation, with historical local Odaa’s of Oromia (Odaa-Bisil, -Bultum, -Gaarres, -Makodi, -Nabee and -Roobaa) as the future separate federal regions of the country? I think it will be almost impossible to divide the current nominally existing Oromia into such Odaa’s in order to foster Oropia without Oromia, thus it is possible to have Oromo national area (Oromia) as an autonomous “Oromo Regional State” within the future Oropia. That is why the concept Oropia is said to be a modified form of Indian model sovereignty; whereas Ethiopia is the unmodified version.
This idea of Oropia is synthesis of the two existing post-freedom sovereignty – that of independent Oromia and union Ethiopia. Why is this synthesis necessary now? I think the aim independent Oromia has got a sort of international obstacle from most neighbouring nations as well as from the international community, and the objective union Ethiopia is facing an internal objection from Oromo nationalists. That is why our leaders were getting difficulty to openly sell the idea of independent Oromia to the diplomatic community; so they usually speak about self-determination, freedom and democracy, instead of clearly telling that “we want to foster an independent Oromia.” At the same time, unionist Oromo nationalists are facing problem in getting support from the Oromo, who have been told for the last 40 years that “Ethiopia is the system to be dismantled, thus we need to reject also the name Ethiopia.”
Accordingly, those with the agenda of union Ethiopia are usually labelled by the pro-independence nationalists as “enemy of Oromo struggle.” Can we change the name Ethiopia in “union Ethiopia” to Oropia and replace the independence goal in an “independent Oromia” by a union and just synthesize from these two goals a ‘Union Oropia’? In this synthesis, clearly Oromia will be in the U.N. in the form of an inclusive union, instead of “exclusive independence.” Such combination of the two objectives into one synthesis can help us reduce the internal Oromo conflicts and the international concern about the fate of the region. Just as Union Oropia is the good synthesis of both an independent Oromia and union Ethiopia, the attempt of keeping the status quo – the imperial Ethiopia – by Abyssinian elites from both Amhara and Tigrai nations, is anti-thesis of the two.
In short: Imperial Ethiopia =====> Union Ethiopia vs Independent Oromia ——-> Union Oropia
I once wrote an article showing the importance of naming, which is the main factor of identifying certain nation: http://gadaa.com/oduu/20240/2013/06/15/ … entifying/. Such naming of the future union as Oropia solves the conflict between the pro-independence fronts and pro-unity forces: we will have both the desired independence and the required unity, if the other nations accept this recommendation as a compromise solution. As far as the Oromo-proper is concerned, we renamed our nation from “Galla” to Oromo and our capital city from Addisaba to Finfinne without waiting for any permission or recognition from anyone else. So, why not we rename the country from Ethiopia to Oropia? Anybody can call the country either Abyssinia or Ethiopia, but Oromo people should unanimously agree to call it from now on as Oropia. That country is neither land of the mixed (Abyssinia) as the Portuguese called it nor the land of the burnt face (Ethiopia) as the Greeks named it, but it is the land of the brave (Oropia) as both Oromo-proper and Oromo-progeny (other Cushitic nations as offshots from the Oromo) call ourselves. Such Cushitic Oromia, in which freedom of citizens, liberty of nations, genuine democracy, justice and human rights are respected, will be our future common home, if other nations in the empire voluntarily accept and endorse this suggestion.
If Oromo neighbours are not ready to accept Union Oropia, they are the ones who should seek an aknowledgemnet from Oromo or Oromia and ask recognition from the international community to get their own independence. Oromo national liberation struggle of both OPP and OLF lines need to focus on how to get state power in Caffee Araaraa palace of Finfinne as well as give such offer of Union Oromia for others to stay with us, if they want. Does OPP of Dr. Abiy have this power now or is it simply a window dressing for the TPLF domination? If yes, this is a union in our own terms, which can benefit the Oromo and others. It is a bit similar to the opinion of Ob. Baaroo Tumsaa, given 40 years ago, where he suggested: “we, the Oromo, must capture state power by any means necessary. In order to do this, we must clandestinely organize all sectors of our society. It is responsibility of the young educated Oromo like you, to disseminate the spirit of Oromo nationalism when you return to your respective communities. We can only change the deplorable condition of our people by being tolerant to one another and reestablishing a necessary Oromo national unity. In this way, we can build a strong organization, capture state power and take actions that facilitate fundamental social transformation.”
I would like to suggest an implementation of the following five points in phase of “taking actions that will facilitate transformation”: (1) freedom of citizens and nations in the union; (2) Afan Oromo as a working language of the union; (3) democracy as rule of game in the union; (4) Oromia as name of the union; and (5) the Cushitic Black-Red-White as flag of the union. If all our neighbouring nations are interested in living with the Oromo in a common home (union), they have to take this offer seriously; otherwise, I think the birth of an independent Oromia is inevitable and this surely will divide the present empire at least into four: North Ethiopia, Ogadenia, Oromia and South Ethiopia. As far as the Oromo are concerned, and putting it metaphorically, Union Oromia or Oropia is the same as gross salary, while an independent Oromia is similar to net salary of certain professional. In case other nations reject this offer from the Oromo and go their way to be our neighbour states, we will have our independent Oromia with its capital city Finfinne, just like Russia with its Moscow was left behind as other states of Soviet Union decided for their independence as well as like Serbia and its Belgrade had the same fate during disintegration of Yugoslavia.
In short, both the pro-union and pro-independence Oromo nationalists can consider Union Oropia as common synthetic objective to be told boldly and clearly both internally to our people as well as internationally to others, so that we can unanimously struggle per nonviolent struggle and/or armed struggle to liberate our nation from the 130 years of subjugation. This approach of the Oromo as a majority in the whole country can have a lesser obstacle from internal national friction and milder rejection from international stakeholders of the Horn region. Is this synthesis helpful to promote an indispensable unity of purpose among Oromo nationalists and an important alliance with other anti-TPLF forces, so that we can have effective and efficient force against our main foe – the currently ruling regime of Abyssinian empire? I hope this attempt of seeking common focus for all Oromo liberation forces will be developed further by others with better ideas. After all, Ethiopia was formed, forged and fostered by the blood and bone of Oromo heroines and heroes. Now it is up to the Oromo to reclaim, reform and rename it, if necessary. Is Dr. Abiy leading us to this direction? The writer of this opinion is ready to hear and read all possible – be it negative or positive – feedbacks. But, now being free from Abesha’s system of domination, the Oromo can even reclaim the flag (green-gold-red), Ethiopian history and the name Ethiopia. The Oromo have contributed a lot in making the three (flag, history and name of Ethiopia) famous. May Waaqa help us in the empire/region to foster the common home as suggested here – Union Oropia with Ethnofederation or Oropia with Ethiofederation!
Galatôma