Calling Abyssinia as ‘Ethiopia’: Part of the Oromo Ethiopian Genocide

Through an interdisciplinary, historical – political, approach to the essence of a national name change, we can conclude and safely claim that there is an immediate need to obliterate the inaccurate, historically false, and politically malignant name ‘Ethiopia’ for the country that was earlier known exclusively as ‘Abyssinia’; as long as Semitic Amhara and Tigray Abyssinian culture, behavioural system, education, heretical religion, and authoritarian political ideology prevail in Eastern Africa’s worst tyranny, overwhelmingly oppressing the outright Kushitic Oromo, Sidama, Ogadeni, Afar majority, as well as the Amhara and Tigray Muslims, the country must be called ‘Abyssinia’.

Any use of the historically erroneous and politically mendacious and malevolent name of ‘Ethiopia’ adds not only to the historical confusion but also to the oblivion of the inhuman and dehumanizing political practices of the Monophysitic, feudal, racist and barbaric establishment, which is currently represented by the semi-cannibalistic Meles Zenawi gangster.

To go on with our analysis, we employ an interdisciplinary approach whereby History, Philosophy, Political Sciences and Sociology converge.

A. The importance of a correct, appropriate, pertinent national name choice

In our global world, almost all the states are multinational, multicultural, multilingual, and/or multi-religious entities encompassing all sorts of minorities and identities. Out of all this state-fabricating stuff the modern administrations tried to shape a central, centralized political and administrative power in many, various ways.

In this regard, Switzerland has been very different from the US, but yet both have been very democratic states and societies, respecting the Human Rights and the Cultural Identity of the various groups that shaped either nations. In the same way, the Soviet Union and the Islamic Republic of Iran were very different one from another, but yet both were truly undemocratic regimes transgressing all principles of Freedom, Equity, and Justice.

With the existing numerous interpretational schemes of the past, almost any country can shape real or fictitious dogmas of historical identity, and subsequently impose or suggest them to its citizens. This situation resulted as a matter of fact in a great number of choices as regards the national name of a country. As it can be easily surmised, the impact is different per case.

Several times the national name choice is affected by political options and limits. In the early 90s, tiny 2 million people Macedonia, emanating from the cemetery of peoples called ‘Yugoslavia’, risked a war with Greece because the latter intended to usurp the name of Macedonia and make it identical to ‘Greece’, since there was a part of Macedonia within the Greek state’s surface, and the Greek political class was afraid that the emergence of an independent state called Macedonia would be a threat for the Greek state’s integrity. The Greek extreme right, racist and expansionist-like slogan ‘Macedonia is Greek’ was historically wrong (Ancient Macedonia was never Greek) and politically erroneous (it gave the impression of an imminent Greek attack against the state of Macedonia); contrarily to that aberration, a statement like ‘We also call ‘Macedonia’ our part of the entire Macedonian land’ would shed more light on the issue. If the independent state of Macedonia had opted for another ancient name (f. i. Dardania) or a composite name alluding to Middle Ages peoples’ migrations (f. i. Slavic Macedonia or Vardar Macedonia), there would not have been any dispute.

B. What is the ‘correct’ national name?

Of course, here the answer is simple: the correct name is the name that reflects best the cultural identity of the people to whom it is attributed, and/or expresses better the state promoted cultural image and the historical dogma of the country, always in harmonic coordination of the involved elements and traits.

C. What does the ’correct’ national name do?

A correct national name selection
a) prevents cultural identity crisis,

b) encapsulates a feeling of national completion,

c) generates an interest for stronger reference to the past,

d) conceptualizes better the principal values of the people concerned,

e) ensures a better, higher, and more effective education,

f) helps people elaborate
1. strong national self-knowledge (Italians know their past far better than Bulgarians do),
2. absolute social self-confidence (the Albanians are socially far more confident than the Algerians) and
3. deep politically self-consciousness (with the expansion of the      
French and the American models in the 20th century this point / 
feeling is being lost in the Western societies, but being politically
Roman was different than being politically Greek and Greek
speaking ‘Roman’ Strabo is an excellent example in this regard) and

g) ultimately leads the people in question to a precise conception of its role within the World History.

Better reflection of the cultural identity at gthe sociopolitical level signifies a tremendous potential for the political and intellectual class of the country to strengthen the positive characteristics of the people in question (or just the characteristics of the people that the ruling class wants to strengthen for any possible reason and later use) by retrieving from the treasure of the Cultural Heritage the correct narratives for extensive use in the Primary and Secondary Education.

Self-reliance was essential for efficient action overseas, and for this reason William Blake and Rudyard Kipling offered the correct narratives to the 19th c. British.

Lack of reflection of the cultural identity on the name of the country has automatically a considerable impact, and this makes of any historical reference and narrative a boring story that students learn by heart for the needs of an exam, and then forget, whereas average people ultimately do not absorb the narrative.

Since the accent is on ‘Arab’ in the Egyptian official national name (Gomhouriyah Masr al Arabiyah, with al Masr being an Arabic word of Assyrian - Babylonian origin – Musur, Mat Masri), monotheistic hymns to Aton, the Unique God imposed by Pharaoh Akhenaten in the middle of the 14th c. BCE, are quite boring a subject for average Egyptian schoolboys and students, so they cannot be used in any pedagogic sense. It would be very different, if an Egyptian non-colonial establishment opted for ‘Kemet’ (the Ancient Egyptian name for Egypt) as national name of the country….

Better reflection of the cultural identity signifies also a tremendous potential for the intellectual and the political class of the country to better convince the people about several important historical – ideological – political issues without the need of basing everything on religious faith and spiritual command.

Charles Martel, Jeanne d’ Arc and Marianne represent the same French passion for freedom and independence from local and foreign masters. The great Gallic hero Vercingetorix, despite his fight against the Romans, does not enter into this category, since in his case communal feeling, fraternity, community values matter more. Gallic culture and values have been prohibited in Frankish France, under either Ancien Regime or Nouveau Regime.

Lack of reflection of the cultural identity on the name of the country leaves the people unconvinced about the Cause that the political class of the country wants to serve/promote; it even leaves the political class itself unconvinced about its own purposes.

Italy is a good example in this case; under the name ‘Roman Kingdom’ (or Empire), Italy would have advanced more convincing literature for the needs of its 20th c. expansion and colonialism in the ‘Mare Nostrum’ (the Mediterranean), in the Red Sea, and in the Indian Ocean, leaving the Italian political class with far  greater results.

Furthermore, better reflection of the cultural identity helps the intellectual and political class of a country to impose on and diffuse among the people ideals, concepts and principles in a smooth and undetected way, since these ideals and/or concepts are properly presented, definitely appearing as inherent to the nation’s character and identity.

It is critical in this regard for the intellectual and the political class to understand beforehand what ideal corresponds to / is reflected on what national name.

An entire nation, living without some elementary ideals, concepts, and principles, will soon be met with a problematic environment, consequently falling to decay due to lack of cultural – behavioural originality, political ideological orientation, and the ensuing socioeconomic creativity.

A people, without a proper perception and reflection of its cultural identity, becomes a kind of disintegrated stuff that can easily exploited by rival counties.

D. A national name in the hands of a ruling class

The aforementioned basics do not specify the use of a national name that a ruling class can make. They just give a horizon of potentialities within the interrelationship ‘ruling class – society’. But it is clear that, when we say that a better reflection of the cultural identity permits the intellectual class of the country to strengthen the positive characteristics of the people, we certainly imply that this is done towards a specific direction that may have been chosen.

The choice of a national name can easily become a boomerang for the ruling class of a country, in case it is not wisely chosen; it can even be disastrous, if it is not implemented in complete harmony with all the elements of the popular culture, the behavioural system, the national education and historical dogma, and the foreign policy. In this regard, the strength of the choice and the clear identification of the target are very important for a ruling class. Through use of one precise name, a certain part of a country’s the political establishment can strengthen one trait of the people (heroism), but through use of another name, another part of the same political establishment can promote another trait (dignity and integrity).

Even more so, two different behavioural – cultural – intellectual environments / groups that belong to the same people, but express predilection for two different names (that can be equally applied to the aforementioned people) perceive differently various historical traits and characteristics, philosophical – theological – ideological concepts and nuances.

Avoiding generic terms like ‘good’, ‘bad’, and ‘just’ that can vary tremendously, we may state some examples here; ‘dignity’ is very different a trait for Franks and for Gauls in France, for Muscovites and for southern Russians, for Copts and for Arabic speaking Egyptians, for Byzantino-centric Greeks and for Archaeo-latrous Greeks.

What matters mostly for a ruling elite’s choice, is the coordination of the various included elements, the harmony among all the elements involved in a name’s choice.

There must consequently be an even correspondence between National Name and National Culture, and more particularly between the trait targeted and the National Name, and more specifically between the nuance of the trait targeted and the National Name.

E. The correspondence between the national name and the average culture

Certainly under the same national name various ideological expressions can be sheltered. A French can be a good practicing Catholic in 1864 and/or an atheist in 1870! But when it comes to cultural subjects the national name is often unable to function at a multi-collective level. England means Anglo-Saxon culture, and this has nothing to do with the name ‘Gaelic’. Another national name for that country, such as ‘kingdom of the Gaelic Isles’, would have perhaps solved problems that existed between England and Ireland for more than a century, but would never have imposed the culture that characterized the fighters of Trafalgar, the (1588) vanquishers of the Armada, and the colonizers of India! On the other hand, a choice for a name like ‘kingdom of the Gaelic Isles’ would facilitate a union between Britain, Ireland and the French province of Brittany where Gaelic is spoken and Gaelic culture prevails. It would be an oxymoron to opt for a name that is not expressed at the level of the average culture and education, or that cannot help the ruling class and administration in its choices and targets. Without a justified conviction, the administration of a country, through an inappropriate choice, risks to engulf the country into an impasse, or into the worst possible confusion. Of course, in case of ideological conflict about the national name, the two ideas reflect two different concepts on how the nation should be ruled and on what its ultimate cultural and educational choices should be. Education is deeply involved in this regard, because the appropriate historical education – added to the cultural background, which is instigated to people at home and in the society – facilitates the average people to immediately and spontaneously refer to historical resources, examples, and paradigms.

F. The Parameters of a National Name Choice

When it comes to the choice of a national / ethnic name that is rather relevant of the past, serious parameters that must be taken into consideration are the following:

a. The degree of the documentation of the name
It matters greatly to have available / be based on a vast textual and epigraphic documentation regarding the name we want to choose for a national name. An extensive and proper documentation permits always to properly develop political, ideological, behavioural, artistic, cultural, religious, and philosophical issues, concepts, subjects, points when based thereupon.

To give an example, our documentation about the ancient people of Kashka, who lived in Northern Central Anatolia (Turkey) in the 2nd millennium BCE, is limited to just a book of academic dissertation, based on Ancient, non-Kashka, mainly Hittite (so not original) literature! But our documentation about the Hittites is truly extensive, involving dozens of thousands of texts written in Hatti, Hittite, Luwian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Palaic, Sumerian and Hurrian that were all in use in 2nd millennium BCE Anatolia.

Even more extensive is our documentation about eventual national names – historical terms like Assyria, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia. But what do we know of the Medes? Very little is known mostly through other literatures (Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek), and mostly through later sources. Now, if a modern Iranian administration were to opt for ‘Mede or Median Republic’, this would be an aberration, already because the Median documentation recorded is extremely poor compared to either ‘Persian’ or ‘Iranian’.

Before even checking the historical veracity, the cultural authenticity, and the geographical accuracy of the historical term chosen, one must check what about this historical term – possible national name is reflected on historical documentation, as this is compulsory when it comes to popularizing traditional traits, concepts, and any related subjects.

b. The historical veracity of the name
Throughout the world literatures and mythologies, we have got an astronomic number of names of peoples, nations, countries, tribes, realms, or lands. Many of these names have not been recorded within a pure, concrete and concise, historical context; as they arrive to our ears, they are rather mythologized terms that we cannot afford to opt for, when talking about a modern country’s national name.

Sargon of Akkad has been mentioned in an Ancient Akkadian text, saying: ‘My land is Azupiranu’. But what do we truly know about this land? Based on the huge Assyrian – Babylonian literature (more than 1000000 Cuneiform texts covering more than three millennia of History), within which the aforementioned term is placed, we cannot truly locate that scarcely mentioned land. In general, we have very few, rather mythical references to Azupiranu.

Within the context of the Ancient Greek documentation, we got few references to Sarpedones! Where is truly their land? Somewhere in Anatolia, in Caucasus, in Central Asia! A land lost in the myth.

Similar question and answer can be expressed about the ideal, perfect isle of Avalon, lost far in the North. It is certainly the converging point of numerous Northern European utopian political ideologies, philosophies and dreams. It seems that the extreme North had already fascinated the ancient Greeks, as proven by their references to the Hyperboreans, the people at the extreme confines of the North! From Pytheas Massaliotes down to Richard Wagner one can recreate a Quest for the Ideal Society in the North, but the ‘dream’ can become a nightmare when manipulated – to some extent – by people like Hitler or some present day neo-Nazi groups.

In other words, a name strongly and emphatically mythologized should rather be avoided. The main reason is that it drives us to extreme political concepts that may be anything from romantic and unrealistic to farfetched and even racist. If the North is ‘perfect’, the rest could easily be viewed as … ‘lower’, and then all can turn out to be just a nightmare.
 
c. The name must be culturally authentic.
This means that the name must express the average culture of the people, the real cultural face of the people. To describe an example, we can refer to a critical cultural expression for all the peoples of the world, such as the traditional marriage ceremonial. Marriages happen everywhere but they are strongly influenced by religion, behavioural system, and popular culture.

The Russians are Christians but the basic traits of the Russian marriage have nothing to do with the average marriage in Spain! Within Orthodox Christianity environment, the Russian marriage ceremonial carried out at Nizhny Novgorod has just a few things in common with the Orthodox marriage ceremony practiced at the island of Crete (either under Ottoman rule, until 1905, or under Greek control, ever since). The difference is that Russian marriage is a Slavic marriage.

How authentic would therefore be a national name option for Russia, if employing a term like ‘Scythian Republic’? The political repercussions would obviously be tremendous with Russia advancing an imperialism that would target Afghanistan, Baluchistan, parts of Iran, Kazakhstan, and certainly large parts of Europe and the Balkans, since Scythians settled in all these lands! The term would certainly serve an imperialist political discourse, but the term ‘Scythia’ does not correspond at all to the cultural identity of the average Russians, and not only because the Scythians were buried along with their … horses!

Where would such a choice lead? Certainly, the ensuing ‘Scythian’ – Russian imperialism would be overwhelming, but it would never take hold deep in the Russians’ hearts and minds. Expansion is an attitude all the peoples of the world are well versed in – at least for certain periods during their History –, but the expansion is characterized always by the attitude of each people.

Russians do not ‘expand’ in the way Germans do, Italians do not expand in the way Spaniards do, and so on! It is essential to keep in mind that the best expansion (and this is quite a natural phenomenon that can certainly take many forms, not only the military one) is the one that best corresponds to the basic traits and characteristics of a certain people. In two different moments in History, if the same people with the same culture lives in the same land, certainly it will express the same expansion tendency. But if this people is very different from an earlier people, who lived in the same land, the expansion tendency will be differentiated in most of its aspects.
 
Consequently, by imposing on Russians a non-authentic national name, such as ‘Scythian’, a Russian administration would create contradictions that would complicate the function of the state and the conditions of the society to large extent. On the other hand, such an option would be the correct one, if the Russian administration had in mind to de-christianize Russians and their country. It would consist in a certain political-cultural-ideological choice targeting the change of basic aspects of the Russian character.

This sort of national name choices can be noticed on many occasions throughout History; however, this is the only case the choice of a non-authentic national name may be correct, namely if a deep cultural – behavioural change is sought after.
 
Of course, with the changes that such an ideological choice evangelizes, the non-authentic name will turn out to be authentic in time, i.e. after the targeted changes of cultural face are completed.

However, there can be several national name choices that are culturally authentic! Russia could easily be renamed ‘Slavic Republic’. The term ‘Slavic’ expresses very well the cultural profile of the Russian people.

Russia could also be called ‘Muscovite Republic’, if the choice is to impose Muscovite particularities. ‘Varanger Republic’ could also be the case, but of course it would imply a strong effort of de-christianizing and de-slavizing Russians!

The success of the effort in each case would justify the option, and indicate its correctness…

d. The name must be geographically accurate.
One of the most important drives in making a national name choice is the geographical limitation.

Hungarians, Estonians and Finns came to Europe from the Altai area at the borders of present day Kazakhstan, Russia and Mongolia, but we find it hard to believe that any of these states would promote anything concrete by adopting a name like ‘Altaic Republic’.

The area of Afghanistan, ancient Bactria, where the great pre-Islamic state of Kushan thrived for centuries, at the eastern border of the Sassanid Empire of Iran, was under Macedonian rule during almost 200 years (before the rise of Kushan), since the successors of Alexander the Great had formed a state entity at the eastern border of the Seleucid Empire of Antioch first, and after 250 BCE at the eastern confines of the Arsacid (Ashkanian) Parthian state of Iran. But it would be disproportionate, if not paranoiac, for a modern government in Afghanistan to name the country ‘Macedonia’.

In the same way, it would be unreasonable for today’s Egypt to adopt a name like ‘Roman Republic’, because Romans invaded Egypt, and controlled the entire country before and after the christianization of the empire for no less than 672 years! An invader’s national name cannot be easily applied, let alone imposed.

Viewing things through another viewpoint, Cambyses invaded Egypt but did not name his country ‘Egypt’; in the same way Alexander invaded Mesopotamia but did not rename his country after that land. It would be paranoiac for an invader to prefer the invaded country’s national name, instead of theirs!

When Christian Spain invaded Muslim Andalusia, in the south of the Iberian Peninsula, the Catholic kings did not change the name of their country. And the descendants of all these kings have even fewer reasons to change their countries’ names now!

Who could imagine present day Macedonia being renamed as ‘Mesopotamia’ just because a Macedonian king invaded Mesopotamia before 2300 years? A past event that lasted during a limited space of time cannot be the basis of the national name choice.

Throughout History, we have very few cases of small nations, whose leaders after invading a bigger country, change their past national name, making theirs the invaded country’s name. The fact that the invaded country was more sizeable, represented a more glorious past, and had greater titles of historicity may be the reasons of such an attitude. At times it can be due to political needs of a difficult or extraordinary occurrence.

For instance, the Nesa Indo-Europeans invaded the (non-Indo-European) Hatti kingdom at the northern confines of the Anatolian plateau in the 17th c. BCE and renamed themselves after that old Anatolian kingdom; they did not impose their ethnic group’s name, Nesa, on the kingdom, even after their great expansion throughout all Anatolia! They kept calling the entire country ‘Hatti’.

In addition, they preserved the ancient Hieroglyphic Hatti scripture, they wrote their language in Cuneiform scripture, since they were under strong Assyrian cultural impact, but they made theirs the national name Hatti that was actually foreign to them. And yet their culture was significantly different from that of the non-Indo-European Hatti people. It is sure that they wished to demonstrate that they were the correct heirs and the subservient continuators of the old tradition, and they were able to keep united all the Hatti, and the other peoples of the Anatolian plateau. Perhaps, they would not have been able to do so, if they had named the invaded Hatti as ‘Nesa’.

Of course, any similar case proves very categorically that the smaller ethnic group or country felt and ultimately was inferior to the larger country of which the name was continually used by the invaders.

The Kassites were even better assimilated in Babylonia, since they just became a ruling dynasty, and remained so for no less than 300 years during the second half of the second millennium BCE, although before these events they were an erring tribe in Zagros mountains!

It is noteworthy that, in cases like the last two examples, the small tribe turned successful invader remained in control of, and ruled, the area of the invaded country for a significant space of time – or definitely.

Contrarily, it would be an unprecedented schizophrenia for Romans, who invaded Albania of Caucasus (present day Azerbaijan) for a brief period during the Trajan reign (beginning of the 2nd c. CE), to call the Roman Empire ‘Albania’ long after they were driven out of that land by the Parthian Iranians.

In modern times, Turkish-speaking Muslims from Anatolia and the Balkans decided to name Turkey the central part of the Ottoman Empire, where the great majority of the people were speaking Turkish. Certainly, Turks are just one of the so-called Turkic peoples, who originate – along with many others – from the northeastern part of Asia, beyond the Altai Mountains area. The Turkic linguistic group consists in one of the branches of the Uralo-Altaic linguistic family that encompasses languages like Mongolian, Hungarian, Finnish, etc.
 
Of course, the land of their origin was very far from the land they finally settled in, but Turks could claim no less than 900 years presence in the area of Anatolia, when they named the country they formed in 1921 ‘Turkey’. What is even more essential in this regard is the fact that there was never a precise land, country or state in the original land of the Turks that had been named precisely ‘Turkey’, since pre-state, tribal social conditions were prevailing there.

Consequently, we do not have to do with any effort of ‘name transplantation’ here! Certainly, as case it is rare, and it consists of course in an ideological Search for National Identity, something that was forged along with the introduction of that name in 1921.

Ending up this part, we ascertain that the selection of a geographically irrelevant national name guarantees the malfunction of the confused country, state, and people, as the introduction of irrelevant, inconsistent and alien parameters is always the cause of confusion.

G. Abyssinian Culture under Ethiopian name is – at least – an Oxymoron.

Examining, in the light of the aforementioned, the subject of the irrelevant, inappropriate and mischievous use of the term ‘Ethiopia’ by the authorities of the state of Abyssinia, we come first to several clarifications. The choice for ‘Ethiopia’ bears the following characteristics:

1. It is a name that is alien to the people / country to whom it was first attributed, and therefore it is not sufficiently documented.

Like all the national names that are not given to a people or country by the indigenous people, the term is not greatly documented for the people in question. The term is a foreign language term, used by Ancient Greeks and Romans, not the indigenous Kushitic people of Ancient Sudan, whom the Greeks called ‘Aithiopes’ – Black – face people. We know very well that the Ancient Kushites of Sudan called their country ‘Kas’, and the Ancient Egyptians called them after the same name. It is a parallel case with the use, in modern times, of the terms Burma (foreign) and Myanmar (indigenous). We certainly are better and more authentically documented about the latter.

2. It is a term of low historical veracity.

Certainly the term ‘Ethiopia’ describes the people, the country and the state in the southern border of Egypt, and this people, country and state existed in reality; however, because of the fact that the term was not of authentic, indigenous origin (as the Greeks, who introduced it, did not share common borders with that country), large part of our documentation on Ethiopia, i.e. the Antiquity of present day Sudan, is mythical – not historical – of character. The historical veracity of the Ancient Greek documentation on ‘Ethiopia’ is much lower than that of the Ancient Greek documentation on Egypt or Rome.

3. It is a culturally not authentic name; it is counterfeit and fraudulent.

Despite the existence of all sorts of peoples and tribes on the soil of today’s Abyssinia, involving Oromos, Sidamas, Ogadenis, Afars, Tigrays, Amharas and others, the traditional factor / moving force behind political developments and state promoted education, religion, culture and ideology were the two Abyssinian tribes, the Amharas and the Tigrays, namely the descendents of the Semitic - Yemenite origin people who created a small state around Axum already in pre-Christian times. Their original name Habashat, attested in Ancient Yemenite (deciphered) epigraphic evidence, was rendered as ‘Abyssinian’ in Ancient Greek, Latin, and the modern Western languages.

Through a series of various state formations that come down to our times, the Gueze – Amhara / Tigray speaking minority of present day Abyssinia shaped the official culture, the historical dogmas, and the state ideological environment in Axum, Lalibela, and Gondar, and finally in Finfinne that was renamed as Addis Abeba.

It is essential in this regard to denote following elements:

a. While imposing their cultural, educational, and political choices, the Semitic Amhara / Tigray rulers intended to promote typically Semitic, Abyssinian, cultural, behavioural, and religious characteristics, traits, forms and concepts.

b. While imposing their cultural choices, the Semitic Amhara / Tigray Abyssinian rulers never expressed the slightest desire, willingness or intention to make any sort of cultural synthesis with values, principles, concepts, traits and ideas shared by the outright majority that consists of other, Kushitic, non-Semitic, peoples of their country that had militarily expanded to encompass non Abyssinian peoples up to the extent they formed its outright majority (around 70%).

c. While imposing their cultural choices, the Semitic Amhara / Tigray Abyssinian rulers deliberately oppressed – with the intention of extinction – the non-Semitic, Kushitic cultures, behavioural systems, ‘Weltanschauungen’ and systems of traditional thought that existed within the Abyssinian territory.

d. Over the past 100 years, the Semitic Amhara / Tigray Abyssinian rulers intentionally attempted a most anti-Kushitic strategy directed against the oppressed Kushitic peoples of Abyssinia.

4. As term, it is geographically inaccurate.

The use of the ancient Greek term ‘Ethiopia’ never goes beyond the present day borders between Sudan on one side and Eritrea and Abyssinia on the other side.

Historical or mythical references to ‘Ethiopia’ refer therefore to a completely different people living in a completely different location that is totally unrelated to the homeland of the Semitic ruling class and peoples of present day Abyssinia.

In periods of the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, when due to various historical developments the term ‘Ethiopia’ was used vaguely, ‘Ethiopia’ was not thought as only encompassing the area of today’s Sudan and Abyssinia – which would let us consider related reasons – but also Eastern Africa, Yemen, Arabia, and even India!

We cannot afford therefore to take the old times confusion as corroboration of modern states’ illegitimate, controversial, hypocritical and pernicious claims. In the same way, India could raise similar claims, since in the Late Antiquity the use of the term ‘India’ became also a matter of confusion, encompassing all lands beyond Thebes of Egypt, i.e. from Egypt to Indonesia! For the early Medieval Greek historiographers, Ethiopia and India were semi-mythical, interchangeable, geographic terms.

Imperative Conclusions

It is therefore normal to conclude that

I. Since the name ‘Ethiopia’ concerns exclusively the great Kushitic state at the area of the North and the East of present day Sudan, with capitals at Kerma, Napata / Karima, and Meroe / Bagrawiyah,

II. Since the various Semitic, non-Kushitic, peoples and states of the North of present day Abyssinia controlled only once, only partly, and only for less than 100 years, the historically ‘Ethiopian’, Kushitic, pre-Christian state of Sudan,

III. Since the modern Semitic peoples of Abyssinia, who are the descendants of the earlier Semitic – Yemenite emigrants to this part of Africa, although consisting in a minority in that country, express and methodically pursue deep anti-Kushitic attitudes, policies and strategies, by ruling and tyrannically oppressing – at the political, ideological, cultural, educational, linguistic, social, and economic levels – the Kushitic peoples of that country, who represent a genuine majority among the entire population,

It is absolutely unacceptable for the state of Abyssinia to insist on using the bogus-name of ‘Ethiopia’.

The only historically legitimate and politically reasonable use of the name of ‘Ethiopia’ lies with

A. either the present day state of Sudan,

B. or the oppressed Kushitic Oromo majority of Abyssinia.

In the former case, it would contribute to the country’s demanded de-arabizing policy.

In the latter case, it would express the linguistic propinquity between the past, Kushitic Ethiopia, and the present, the Kushitic Oromo nation. It would also correspond to the Quest of the Oromo people for their Identity and Origin, since an identification of the Napatan and Meroitic Ethiopian past with the modern Kushitic people of Oromo is very plausible.