What was the relationship between Ethiopia and Oromia?
Prof Moh: The relationship between the Ethiopian Empire created by Emperor Menilek and that of Oromia was and still is colonial. It was the relationship of colonizers and the colonized, the rulers and the ruled, the oppressors and the oppressed, the masters and the subjects. As with all forms of colonialism, the driving social force behind Menilek’s colonialism was economic. “. . . the green lush lands of the Oromo and their boundless commodities (gold, civet, ivory, coffee and [their] prosperous markets) were the economic motives” (Hiwet 1975, p. 4). To these may be added ” . . . the search for new sources of food for Menilek’s soldiers, the plunder of Oromo property, free labor, and the expropriation of Oromo land were the primary economic motives (Hassen 1990, p. 198). Some aspects of Menilek’s colonialism in Oromia have similarities with European colonialism in other parts of Africa.
As European colonists dominated the economic resources and controlled the politics of their colonies, Menilek’s armed settlers in Oromia dominated the economic resources and totally controlled the military, judiciary and political power, institutionalizing the monopoly of the settler’s advantages. The armed settlers in Oromia were and still are known as Neftanya (Nafxanyaa). Emperor Menilek alienated Oromo land and gave it, together with the people, to the Neftanya, who owned land, cattle, and slaves ( Hassen 1990, p. 93). In the sacred land of their birth, the Oromo lost their rights to their own lands and became landless Gabars (serfs) who were “ . . . physically victimized, socially and psychologically humiliated and devalued as human beings”( Ibid). The Neftanya, who exploited, brutalized, and dehumanized the Gabars had no interest in recognizing the humanity of the Oromo. “The purpose was to break the Oromo in body, soul and spirit and reduce them to the condition of helplessness and dejection” (Ibid).
As if what has transpired thus far was not enough, systematic efforts were made to destroy Oromo cultural heritage, political and religious institutions. No stone was left unturned to destroy Oromo unity and national identity. All Oromo kingdoms, even the three kingdoms that purportedly had local autonomy, were abolished. Before their conquest the Oromo maintained contact with each other through the famous pilgrimage to the land of their spiritual leader in southern Ethiopia. The pilgrimage served as the focal point of their spiritual and national unity. After the conquest of Oromia, Menilek officially banned the Oromo pilgrimage (Knutsson 1967, pp. 147-155), so as to weaken Oromo unity. He went further and banned Gada elections and the gatherings of the Chafe Assembly.
Once elections to the political offices and the gathering of the Chafe Assembly were banned, the Gada system lost the raison d’ etre for its political existence (Hassen 1990, p. 95). The system had lost all of its political significance. It was only the memory of the system that continued to exist. In short, after the conquest and annexation of Oromia, the Oromo lost their sovereignty, their land, their democratic political institution and their basic human rights. Thus, contrary to the claim that Emperor Menilek “united Ethiopia”, he created an empire “ . . . of which all the members were subjects rather than citizens, but in which almost all the Oromo were colonial subjects” (Baxter 1978, p. 288) .
It is fair to say that the modern Ethiopian state was not brought about by natural growth of united peoples. It was the product of colonial conquest. Since its creation, the Ethiopian state became the state of the ruling Abyssinian (Amhara-Tigray) elites . . . [who] dominated the political, military, economic, cultural, religious and social life of the Ethiopian state.
Deprived of all their rights and human dignity, the Oromo had no choice but to embark on the path of resistance. Thus from the 1880s when Oromia was conquered and colonized to the early 1960s, when the Pan-Oromo movement was created, there was not a single decade which was not characterized by resistance in different parts of Oromia. Many Oromo died resisting with arms in their hands rather than accept intolerable domination (see Cerulli 1922, pp. 46-52). However, owing to the lack of central leadership, the absence of communication, the long distance and the tight control of imperial government, the numerous Oromo resistances were uncoordinated and they were isolated.
Xirroo: The so-called “Habasha Historians” have been saying the Oromo have no history. Some have been saying the Oromo are alien to Ethiopia. And others have been saying the Oromo came out of water. How can this be evaluated from historical point of view?
Prof. Moh: The Oromo have as rich and as complex history as other peoples of Ethiopian including the Abyssinians. However, due to lack of their own writing system, history of the Oromo was not recorded. Because the Abyssinians have had a very unique writing system, they kept records of the history of their great men and women for hundreds of years. Although some Amhara communities and some Oromo groups had contact with each other in the region of Shawa probably by around 1200, it was only during the 16th century that conflict between the two groups intensified. As a result of this conflict the Christian monks and court chroniclers depicted the Oromo as “enemies of the Amhara” and what they wrote about the Oromo mainly expressed the intense prejudice deeply rooted in the Abyssinian society. The monks and court chroniclers presented the Oromo as” new comers to Ethiopia” and as “people without history”.
Even some modern scholars (see Ullendorff 1960, p.76) repeated the silly stuff of court chroniclers as if they are gospel truth. Abyssinian monks and court chroniclers wrote about the Oromo for the purpose of denigrating them as people, and savaging their cultural creativity, their democratic heritage and their way of life. Since what the monks and court chroniclers wrote about the Oromo was the sources for the writing of Oromo history, no other people, in Ethiopia, had their history so distorted or ignored and their cultural achievements and human qualities undervalued as the Oromo have been in the Ethiopian historiography. Abyssinian view of Oromo history mainly reflects their prejudice against the Oromo.
The claim that the Oromo were “new comers to Ethiopia” and that they are people “without history” is historically nonsense. How could the people who have lived in Ethiopia for thousands of years suddenly become “new comers” to the same country?” People whose views are shaped by their own prejudice do not realize that there are no people without history in the whole world. The Oromo have fascinating history, which tells the story of their cultural creativity, political institutions which flowered in patterns of their own making and nourished Oromo political, spiritual and material well-being."
Professor Mohammed Hassen.
