A Transcendental Approach to the Need for Oromo Leadership Part III
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
September 03, 2008
The Amhara anti-Oromo animosity reflects today a 2-millennium long opposition between the indigenous, African, Kushitic Ethiopians and the emigrant, Semitic, Yemenite Abyssinians. It should however be clearly understood that the Amharas are not the only enemy of the Oromos. Simply, the propinquity makes them more reviled.
For a subjugated nation, a faraway enemy can be more harmful and perilous; one can generally call the case ´colonialism´; however, this phenomenon is vast and nuanced. There can be direct and indirect colonialism. This is one point; the other point is that not all the colonial powers have been equally detrimental to the colonized peoples. It is essential to illuminate these two point before proceeding with the identification of the Oromos´ regional global enemies.
Direct and Indirect Colonialism
Yemen, as integral part of the Islamic World for no less than 900 years, became normally an undisputed province of the Ottoman Empire, when the Sultans of Istanbul became Caliphs, and the Ottoman forces arrived in Yemen. Colonialism in Yemen started in the 1830s with the British invasion of Aden in their vicious plan of encircling and destroying the Islamic Caliphate quintessence of the Islamic World. This example is a typical direct colonialism. The departure of the British brought an end to the direct colonial rule.
The British had also colonized the Ottoman province of Sudan in the second half of the 19th century; but to do this, they involved the Egyptians who were by then under a particular regime of a Viceroy who was nominally subject to the Ottoman Empire (as Egypt had been an integral part of the Caliphate for almost 300 years / 1517 1798) and essentially controlled (and therefore colonized) by the combined colonial forces of France and England. The military and economic presence of Europeans in Sudan was pseudo-legitimized by the idiotic cooperation of the Viceroy (Khedive), who was not even an Egyptian but Albanian of descent. This case is a composed, indirect and direct colonial, regime.
In the case of the colonial Abyssinian expansion at the prejudice of numerous African nations which lost their independence in the process, we have sheer French and English offer of support, technical assistance, financial aid, military know how transfer, and key intelligence info handed over the Abyssinian tyrannical rulers.
Both, France and England, wanted Abyssinia to expand colonially in order to
1. contain the Italian colonial expansion in the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa region, and
2. balance their own colonial expansion in the aforementioned area. The French were pushing from the West (Sahara and the territories of today´s Central African Republic and Chad), and the English were trying the establish a colonial axis from the North to the South of the Black Continent.
Consequently, the nations that have been subjugated by the Abyssinians, have been indirectly colonized by the British and the French. This is a key point to take into consideration.
In fact, indirect colonialism can last longer and take different forms; England colonized India, and after more than 200 years of colonial conspiracy, presence and rule, the English left. By dividing their previous colony, through a disreputable UN involvement, into many countries, the English managed that an entire nation, the Baluchs, be divided among three states, namely Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan.
The treatment that the Baluchs have received within Pakistan is purely colonial, but the direct colonial presence of the Pakistani authorities in Baluchistan does not minimize in anything the indirect still present English colonialism.
A similar case can be noted in NW Africa, where the indirect French colonialism left the Kabylian Berbers without a state.
Differentiation among colonial rulers
Colonialism itself is a vast issue that does not belong exclusively to modern periods of the History of the Mankind. In the Antiquity, we easily identify Egyptian, Phoenician, Assyrian Babylonian, Aramaean, Persian, Yemenite, Greek, Hebrew and Roman colonies.
The reasons that bring the settlers to faraway places vary; from commercial motifs to military conquest, and from interest for exploration to flight due to tyranny, many varied motives bring people sometimes in great numbers to distant places.
In modern times, colonialism started with the efforts of the kings of Spain and Portugal to reach out to India in order to break the Ottoman monopoly over the commercial routes to the spices, fragrances, incense and other products of the Orient. Spanish colonialism proved to be extremely brutal as it took the form of intentional genocide of the Mayas, the Aztecs and the Incas, who were forced to Christianity.
Holland, France, and England followed on the Spanish and Portuguese colons´ footprints; contrarily, great maritime powers of the Mediterranean, like Genoa and Venice, remained confined within the same geographical area and gradually lost their significance. Although parts of Africa and Asia had been colonized by some of the five European colonial powers, first America was completely colonized (by Spain, Portugal, France, Holland, England and Russia), and then the competition was transferred in Africa where for centuries the Ottoman Empire controlled lands inhabited by Muslims that totaled an area of more than 8 million km2.
As all African Muslims (with the exception of the Moroccans, the Malians and other Muslims of the Western confines of Africa who were organized in at times sizeable states) from Algeria to Egypt to Somalia viewed the Sultan Caliph and the Sheikh-ul-Islam as their political and spiritual leaders, we cannot possibly discuss of Ottoman colonialism.
In Africa, Western colonialism took an openly anti-Islamic form which has left an irreversible impact down to our days. Spain and Portugal had already expanded tremendously, that´s why their involvement in Africa was not momentous; however, Portugal´s involvement was early and critical as it saved the tiny Abyssinian state from extinction. Holland had great interests elsewhere; in Europe itself, Belgium was a Dutch colony, whereas faraway Indonesia was truly immense for the small European kingdom. In fact, Africa was the continent of the harshest Anglo-French competition. Italy and Germany were late newcomers, and the overall picture was completed with Portugal, Belgium and Spain.
Colonialism had more limited success in Asia; three great, old states, namely the Ottoman Empire (last but not final metamorphosis of the Roman Empire and its Oriental part), Iran and China were never colonized. Of course, the three countries were terribly weakened, as they were targeted by nearly all the then competing European colonial empires, Russia, France, England. With the aforementioned three empires, plus Germany, Austria-Hungary, Japan and the United States competing for a larger colonial portion in China, started WW I that was a shock for the 19th century colonialism.
It was absolutely duplicitous for the American establishment to fight so resolutely against the Spanish colonial empire in the last decades of the 19th century and humbly and shamefully agree with the expansion of the French and the English colonial empires at the prejudice of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of WW I.
With the demise of the colonial dreams of Germany, with the rise and the fall of the Japanese and the Italian colonial empires, with the transformation of the colonial empires to postcolonial authorities, and with the emergence and the dissolution of the Communist world, we were ushered into our global times.
How can we differentiate among the colonial empires?
There are two levels of evaluation, namely physical and socio-behavioural cultural.
1. Physical Level
Brutality is a sign of insanity and inhumanity; wherever we attest a high degree, great extent and long duration of brutality, we realize that we face a merciless colonial empire ruled by cruel racists. This is the case of Spain in Mexico and Peru, this occurred in Tanganyika at the times of the German occupation, and this was encountered in the Eastern confines of Asia at the times of the Japanese empire. It is essential to add that the same brutality was employed by the Amharas against the Oromos, and by the Russians against the Uzbeks and the Turkmen.
2. Socio-behavioural Cultural Level
Contrarily to the Spanish, German, Russian, and Japanese cruelty, the classical French and English colonialism is mainly directed against the socio-behavioural, cultural and national values of the colonized nations. Instead of killing or expelling anyone who opposed the colonial orders and rule, the French and the English deployed a great effort to socially infiltrate and culturally alter the subjugated nations. They extended this approach to the local elites, anticipating the logical social impact and ramifications of an advanced de-formation, de-education, and de-identification of the local elites.
The French and English approach targeted the colonized peoples´ national identity, historical heritage, cultural authenticity, religious traditions, socio-behavioural soundness, and proper existence. The approach is mainly French of concept and the English have been distant second in this regard. The French intentionally tried to turn all the colonized peoples victims of the French expansionism and imperialism to mere copies of (certainly unauthentic) Frenchmen. They projected among the colonized nations prefabricated ideas ´bon pour l´ Orient´ and tried to convince that allover the world ´culture´ is the French culture.
The English did not reach that level; however, they used the French effort in order to project general considerations of and viewpoints on the commercial economic exchanges and the international economic order. This attitude ushered us into the world of global economy on which English liberalism rather than French dirigisme left a strong impact.
Italy more preferable than Amhara Abyssinia for Oromos
Compared with the English and French colonial rule as it was exercised in a variety of Middle Eastern and /or African countries (such as Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Lebanon and Morocco), Italy proved to be a far more human colonial power. Italian colonialism in Libya, Eritrea, Somalia and Abyssinia was rather an expression not imposition of Italian daily lifestyle.
Although Italy represents within the European continent a far older and far more determinant culture than France and England (Renaissance alone would reconfirm the aforementioned statement), the Italians did not force the Libyans or the Somalis to perceive the world as possible to view only through the eyes of Boccaccio or Dante, nor did they constrain them to share the esthetics of Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci.
In fact, the Italian humanist attitude can be attested in the return of the Axum stele (hawalti), and in the most recent deal with Libya, involving formal apology and reparations for the colonial occupation.
The English and the French reactions against the pertinent Berlusconi Qadhafi deal, as encapsulated in numerous articles in the world press (f. i. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1838014,00.html), demonstrate the evil and racist nature of the French and English establishments.
It is essential for every Oromo activist and political volunteer to understand that tactical mistakes have been made in the past; when the Italian colonials attacked Abyssinia in 1936, they did not represent a threat against the Oromos, the Afars, the Sidamas and others, but a menace against the evil monarchical state of Abyssinia, and its cannibalistic pseudo-king Haile Selassie.
In fact, at those days, the Abyssinian invasion of Oromia had just been completed, and the last king of Jimma had died before just 4 years (1932); it was too early for the Oromos to have formed a strong resistance organization and liberation front. If this had been the case, an alliance between the Oromos and the Italians (stronger than the rather unmotivated cooperation of Abba Jofir with the Italian administration of the subjugated Abyssinia) could have brought liberation to Oromia in more rapid and anodyne way.
Anglo - French Colonial Establishment: Arch-enemy of the Oromo Nation
Why is the Anglo-French colonial establishment an enemy of the Oromo nation? Without understanding this reality, the Oromos have little to minimal chances to achieve national liberation and independence, as they will fail to identify their primary foe´s real motives.
The Anglo-French colonial establishment is selective and partial in its expression of political support; their American puppets, the pro-European part of the US establishment, are equally partial, and this has been repeatedly reconfirmed through proper study of their differentiation tactics. The recent story of anti-Zimbabwe hysteria is typical.
The ruler of Zimbabwe did not carpet bomb villages and towns of his country, but the Abyssinian cannibal Meles Zenawi did. However, the US and EU African policies and rhetoric are full of venomous focus for Zimbabwe but seem to be totally oblivious of the criminal practices of the Abyssinian tyranny. The US duplicity reaches the level of criminality for immoral and wicked elements like Jendayi Frazer, the disreputable accomplice of the Abyssinian butcher Zenawi.
The only US and EU policy as regards the Oromos involves the continuation of the barbaric and inhuman Abyssinian dictatorship and the prolongation of the tyrannical imposition of the fallacious, racist and Satanic dogma of ´Ethiopianism´. In other words, the Anglo-French colonial establishment definitely and passionately seeks the extinction of the Oromo Nation.
Why such evilness?
The issue to be plainly answered would involve a great number of volumes; it is essential for Oromos to understand the evil nature of the Anglo-French colonial establishment. In fact, it is wrong to confuse it with mainstream Christianity as many Islamists unfortunately do misguiding themselves only.
The evil Anglo-French colonial establishment turned repeatedly against many Oriental Christians, and contributed greatly to the physical and spiritual genocide of the Aramaean Nation.
In fact, they would turn with evil intention for ultimate extinction against anyone, against any nation that by its existence consists in sheer rejection of their perfidious concepts and ideas, and in definite opposition to their messianic and eschatological plans and related practices.
More particularly with respect to the Oromos, the existence of the Gadaa system is a superb demonstration that the Western democracy (not as heralded and envisioned by the Enlightenment philosophers but as practiced in the 20th century) is a fake, tyrannical system whereby hidden groups of power can easily advance their agenda by perpetrating - in front of the outright majority of the otherwise blind societies - detrimental conspiracies that go unnoticed. The nature of the secret societies that control the Western world involves undetected, secret support and solidarity expressed in public among these societies´ members that are not identified by the rest as such (which would illustrate to all the rest the real motives behind their decisions and acts). In this way, with untied hands, members - initiated into conspiracies against the rest - support partially their ´brethren´ in order to facilitate the materialization of the objective of their secret society to put every social and political activity under control.
This abhorrent reality is in total contrast with the openness, the fairness and the humanity of the Gadaa system that does not leave space for secret groups of individuals to be formed as a cancerous tumor in the society.
An independent state ruled by the Gadaa system consists in a supreme danger for the Anglo-French colonial establishment; if average citizens and specialists of the Western world studied a society ruled by Gadaa, they would propagate its benefits among the Western societies and this could cause a thunder far more menacing that Lenin´s October revolution.
If the advantages, the morality, and the humanity of the open system became a reason for many to demand dissolution of the Western secret societies like the Apostate Anglo-French Freemasonic lodge, this would announce the beginning of the end for the Western World.
Even worse, within an Oromo state organized by Gadaa, the Anglo-French colonial establishment would fail to infiltrate and impose its norms, inflecting the international stance of the country, and dictating choices and decisions.
For them, the existence of a genuine Oromo state and society would gradually trigger their end.
On the other hand, an independent Oromia would be the first, ideologically and culturally Kushitic, state, and yet their perverse reading of the Bible makes them believe that they must never allow the descendants of Ham rule their countries.
The continuation of the slavery of the Kabylian Berbers in Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Libya clearly demonstrates their Anti-Kushitic empathy. This issue is vast, but here we can conclude that there will never be an independent Oromia, if Oromos fail to understand that the main adversaries they have to face are the manipulators of the Western societies: the Apostate Anglo-French Freemasonic Lodge.
In a forthcoming articles, we will focus on how every Oromo can become a real leader of the National Oromo Struggle for Liberation and Independence.
Note
Picture: Graziani crashed the ridiculous Amhara soldiers and forced the panicked Haile Selassie, the Butcher of the Oromos, to leak the boots of the English in order to save his pseudo-kingdom and continue his genocides. Truthful and objective presentation of the military skills of Rodolfo Graziani: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodolfo_Graziani
Print
Email
