Horn of Africa History, Colonial Plans, and the Outrageous Forger Mammo Muchie – Part III

Following earlier articles, in which we revealed hidden plans against the peoples of the Horn of Africa, we denounced the purpose of the Horn of Africa Conference, which contributes to the colonial plans for the formation of a vast tyrannical and colonial empire spanning from Egypt’s southern border to the coast of Kenya, named ‘Coptic Republic of Ethiopia’.

We then focused on an incredible and absolutely fallacious article of bogus-historical contents published as support of the aforementioned conference by Mammo Muchie (‘Unite the people from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean’ / http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article23512). In this article, we will continue uncovering the fraudulent presentation of Eastern African History by Mammo Muchie in his article’s main part.

The earlier articles on the subject are the following:
1. Colonial Plans for the Horn of Africa – ‘Ethiopia’ to border with Egypt? /
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=37960
2. Horn of Africa - Monstrous Colonial Plans Unveiled / http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=37904
3. The Horn of Africa Conference Clique, and their Dark Plans for Egypt, Sudan, 'Ethiopia', and Somalia / http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38050
4. Horn of Africa History, Colonial Plans, and the Outrageous Forger Mammo Muchie /
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38115, and
5. Horn of Africa History, Colonial Plans, and the Outrageous Forger Mammo Muchie – Part II /
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38460

To  help the reader, we will first publish the text (‘Myth of Origin’, part of Mammo Muchie’s article ‘Unite the people from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean’) , and then its refutation. Numbers encrusted in Mammo Muchie’s text refer to points of refutation. The first twenty seven (27) points have been already refuted analytically, so we will start with point 28.

Myth of Origin (Unite the people from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean)  by M. Muchie

"Looking back far ahead at the possible birthdates of the names Ethiopia, Sudan, Djibouti, Eritrea and Somalia, 1 one finds a remarkable history that they more or less originated in the same area 2 and the forces that shaped each one has shaped the other. 3 If we look back thus to the myth of origin of these entities, 4 we find that it argues for their unity and composition rather than their division and fragmentation. 5

If we take the Pre-Judaic, Pre- Christian and pre-Islamic phases of historical evolution, 6 again the same thing transpires: the same forces that shaped each have shaped the others. 7

If we take the Judaic, Christian and Islamic periods 8 respectively, we see a history of interaction, 9 communication, 10 migrations, 11 wars, 12 and a shared civilisation 13 and extensive contact through trade with the outside world of Europe, India and China. 14 We see not only did these entities from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean communicate through mutual subjugation and the brutalities, injustices and oppressions recorded in history from the outside medieval and ancient worlds, 15 but also through the migration of their own civilisations 16 through the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean, even the Atlantic and other outlets. (Shihan de S Jayasuriya & R. Pankhurst (eds.) The African Diaspora in The Indian Ocean, 2003) 17

The division of these entities into the states as we know them as they are arranged now came during the notorious period of the European Scramble for Africa. 18 During this period in the 19th century the people of this region were divided 19 or mutilated 20 and their determined resistance against the colonial encounter was largely and on the whole, though heroic, was unsuccessful. 21 Even the Ethiopian 22 kings that appeared to have been able to snatch and retain a territorially carved Ethiopian state formation that waxed and waned territorially over time from the jaws of the European scramble 23 only were able to maintain and retain on the whole a tenuous grip. 24 Their states have been constantly threatened by perfidious imperial humiliations 25 through unequal treaties 26 and unrealistic and unfair border demarcations 27 that imbedded the seeds of all sorts of conflicts and antagonisms that have undermined state and unification in Ethiopia. 28 The imperial-colonial pressure was victimising rather than building. 29 Ethiopia emerged scathed with the scars and threats of the imperial agenda of the time falling prey 30 to it once more by those it defeated, for example, at Adwa in 1896 31 and falling under fascist occupation 32 between 1936 and 1941 under the Italians colonial adventures. 33

Whilst it is very clear to any sober person that Ethiopia suffered as an oppressed country, 34 and whatever it managed to recover from the imperialist onslaught 35 is gained through huge sacrifice and resistance, a particularly sinister reading and twist was given to its role during the Scramble for Africa, as if it was part and parcel of the Great Powers, and indeed a great power itself!! 36 Nothing can be furthest from the truth than this preposterous claim that Ethiopia was part and parcel of the imperial and colonial system. 37 Ethiopia was a victim of the colonial-imperial order 38 and cannot be considered as part and parcel of the imperial system 39 even if it were to have allied with one sort or group of imperial powers 40 locked in rivalries with each other to retain a partially 41 carved state from the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea.

In the Conference in Lund some delegates who should know better 42 tried to spread some unusual tales claiming that the current Somali invasion by the Ethiopian Government 43 was a continuation of the imperial colonial project of the Scramble for Africa 44 where they alleged Ethiopia participated by sending a delegation to the Berlin 1885 infamous meeting. 45 Even if Ethiopia sent an observer, it is a far cry from exaggerating such a presence into a role that Ethiopia was part of the forces that carved the African continent. 46

Conceptually such a claim is outrageous and bankrupt. 47 The Ethiopian emperor was clear that the people from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean are historically and culturally connected. 48 But he lamented the fact that the imperial project disrupted their unity 49 and appealed to God to restore their unity at some possible time in the future. 50 That prescient insight by emperor Menelik has nothing to do with a colonial project. 51 It has everything to do with redressing great power imperial and colonial injustice 52 visited upon not only on the people from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, but also Africa from the Mediterranean to the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. 53

In Ethiopia those who have legitimate demands to decentralise the states of the region particularly in Ethiopia by localising authority at the grassroots 54 by devolving power and empowering ordinary citizens 55 went overboard and created false ideologies 56 of Ethiopia as a’ colonial’ power. 57 This thesis has been loosely spread by books such as Addis Hiwot’s From Autocracy to Revolution, London, published by the Review of African Political Economy group, 1975, Bereket Habte Selassie, Conflict and Intervention in the Horn of Africa, MRP, New York, 1980, A . Jalata, Oromia and Ethiopia: State Formation and Ethnonational Conflict 1868-1992, Lynne Reinner, 1992, Sisay Ibsa et al The Invention of Ethiopia, Trenton, Red Sea press 1991. There are many articles and pamphleteering from the various fronts from the TPLF to OLF, ONLF, Sidama Liberation Front and others that spread loosely the false conception of Ethiopia ’s relations with the various communities both inside and outside the region as a colonial relation. 58 This sinister anti-intellectual 59 and devious misconstruction 60 must be rejected and the precise concept that truly characterises relations of oppressions involving the peoples of the region re- formulated by mounting an unsparing criticism of so much of the propaganda masquerading as science. 61 Ethiopia’s relations with Eritrea, Somalia, Djibouti or Sudan has never been colonial 62 and is not colonial in the sense of a relationship that Britain, Italy or France had with these various states including Ethiopia. 63"

Refutation of Mammo Muchie’s Myth of Origin (Unite the people from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean) 

Point 28

It is absolutely wrong that the border demarcations ‘imbedded the seeds of all sorts of conflicts and antagonisms’. In addition, it is wrong to assume that there are antagonisms in ‘Ethiopia’, except perhaps the Amhara – Tigray rivalry; and it is also mistaken to suppose that there are conflicts in ‘Ethiopia’.

In that fake country – result of colonial expansionism and inhuman totalitarianism, there is - simply put - fight of numerous peoples for Independence; this is not ‘conflict’, it is revolution. Undergone various stages, the oppressed and tyrannized peoples’ total and absolute rejection of the criminal Amhara invasion is about to bring great and fruitful results.

The time is nigh, when there will be a Sidama Republic for 5 million long tyrannized and dehumanized Sidamas.

The time has come for the emergence of Oromo Ethiopian Republic that will resolutely deprive Abyssinian Amharas and Tigrays from the use of the fake - for them - name of Ethiopia.

It is clearly understood that the current Ogaden crisis will burst ‘Ethiopia’, marking its demise date very soon.

The absolute negation of the tyrannized Sidamas, Afars, Oromos, Ogadenis, Shekachos, Anuaks, Kaffas and others to accept the racist, omni-discriminatory and appallingly anti-human practices of tyranny, as carried out for more than a century by the Amhara soldiers, administrators and social-economic-political elites, is not a ‘conflict’.

It is a fully accredited right of any invaded people to react and overthrow the tyranny imposed by the unsolicited intruder, particularly if their armies turn out to be a bestial incarnation of Satan himself.

Antagonisms? There are no antagonisms; among Oromos, Ogadenis, Sidamas, Kaffas, Kambaatas, Shekachos, Anuaks, Afars and others, in any bilateral or multilateral combination there are no antagonisms at all.

The existing antagonism between the Amharas and the Tigrays is due to the common responsibility in illegally invading other peoples, tyrannically occupying foreign lands, and inhumanly exercising the central administration of the much loathed state – Cenotaph. The two elites – represented by the Meles Administration and the Kinijit ‘opposition’ – are antagonizing one another in the administration of the tyranny, proving therefore their Neo-Nazi identity.

If by conflicts, Mammo Muchie signifies the National Strife of so many peoples for Independence, simply using the wrong term for it, again the ‘wrong border demarcations’ are not responsible for this. The reason is the illegal and inhuman act of Amhara invasion and foreign land occupation; the only borders that will not cause ‘conflicts’ are the borders of Amharas around Lake Tana, when no other peoples will be subdued therein, and the Amharas will live alone in their own national – small – state.

Amharas cannot stay in Shoa even for a minute without automatic provocation of ‘conflict’.

On the other hand, one should thank Mammo Muchie for calmingly saying the truth, even if he does not understand it! What else can his words mean, when he is speaking about undermined state and unification in ‘Ethiopia’? Why the state is undermined? Simply because it is loathed and reviled by more than 80% of the entire population of the country, all ethno-religious groups combined.

The villainous project of ‘unification’ of ‘Ethiopia’ is the masquerading effort of the world’s most appalling tyranny; if there is one people in a country, the local government does not need to deploy any effort of ‘unification’. What effort of unification to be possibly deployed by the government of Denmark? No need, as there is only one people living in Denmark. Contrarily, in Belgium whereby Flemish and Walloons live democratically together, sometimes the government has to take measures to promote unity, in order to oppose some nationalist circles that strive for independence; however all people are equal in Belgium, and both Flemish and French are national languages.

But in the Abyssinian Cenotaph, Amharic is imposed to dozens of millions of people who abhor the alien Amhara and their uncivil and barbaric manners. Thank God, Mammo Muchie reveals the reality of this country; why is there still a need for ‘unification’ in Abyssinia? Because the outright majority reject with indignation the Amhara tyranny, and they do not want to be united with those who massacred their ancestors and their brothers, imprisoned their children, stripped them from their natural resources’ exploitation, deprived them from their lands, rights and social culture.

At the same time this is the best evidence of the Amhara acceptance of failure; they know they failed, they do not admit it straight forwardly, but through this unwise confession of Mammo Muchie everything becomes crystal clear. And who would believe that, having failed to ‘unify’ this fake ‘Ethiopia’ during 140 years of foreign lands’ occupation, the alien and inhuman Amharas will be able to do so in the future?

Point 29

This sentence is valid particularly for the Amhara tyranny under any mask, be it monarchical, communist or pseudo-republican. And because the Amharas were not able to ‘build’ anything within their loathed colonial state – as tyrannized peoples of invaded lands ceaselessly rejected them –, Mammo Muchie speaks now about ‘unification’.

Point 30

A tyranny never falls ‘prey’; prey have been the various oppressed peoples who for more than a century had to be massacred, imprisoned and deprived of their basic rights.

Point 31

The so-called victory of Adwa (1896) is another Amhara state myth; in fact, the battle took place at a moment of Italian confusion between Premier Crispi and General Baratieri, who knew he was not prepared for a battle as his premier was persistently asking.

Adwa is mostly remembered for five points in World History:

1. Italian inner divisions

2. Treacherous attitude of the villainous, bogus-king Menelik, who repudiated article XVII of the Treaty of Ucciali (Wichale)

3. Perfidious use of a great number of recently enslaved peoples who naively believed criminal butcher Menelik’s promises, instead of negotiating separately their independence with the Italians, and they were tragically deceived later.

4. Serious political mistakes of the Italians – they did not attempt to negotiate 10-year protectorate agreements with various peoples, like the Afars, the Oromos, the Ogadenis, etc., and

5. Incomparable numbers of fighters (less than 15000 Italian soldiers and more than 100000 soldiers fighting for Menelik).

To clarify better the issue, I refer to the entry ‘Battle of Adwa’ published in the Encyclopedia Britannica which is characterized by an almost neutral standpoint, although Britain was an ally of Abyssinia, willing to minimize the extent of the rising – at the prejudice of the British – colonial territories of (then pro-German) Italy (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003778/Battle-of-Adwa).

"The death (in 1889) of the Ethiopian emperor Yohannes IV was followed by great disorder, during which the Italians helped Menilek of Shewa (Shoa) win the throne. Furthermore, the Treaty of Wichale (Ucciali), which Italy had signed with Menilek in 1889, was interpreted by the Italian premier Francesco Crispi as implying the declaration of an Italian protectorate over Ethiopia. Accordingly, the Italian possessions in Africa were constituted (January 1890) as Colonia Eritrea.

Menilek first repudiated in September 1890 the ambiguous Article XVII of the treaty and then, in September 1893, repudiated the treaty altogether, afterward preparing to combat the Italians' attempt to impose their dominion militarily. Italian victories at the beginning of the campaign were brilliant but fruitless, and at the end of 1895 large Ethiopian armies were threatening the Italian outposts. The Italian governor of Eritrea, General Oreste Baratieri, sighted Menilek's forces on February 7, 1896, but remained inactive. On February 28 Crispi sent Baratieri a furious telegram to try to goad him into action. Desperate to retrieve his position, Baratieri advanced to Adwa with 14,500 men against an Ethiopian army of some 100,000; the Italian columns, moreover, were disorganized and lacked adequate maps of the area."
 
Point 33

It is comical to speak about Italian ‘colonial adventures’, and avoid any focus on the Amhara colonial butchery of so many African peoples, who – if colonized by the Italians – would be independent by now!

Point 34

The oppressed peoples of Abyssinia, fallaciously re-baptized ‘Ethiopia’, suffered far less at the hands of the Italians than at the hands of the illiterate, barbaric and criminal king Haile Selassie, and his Amhara bestial thugs.

Point 35

This is Mammo Muchie’s fraudulent diatribe’s most ridiculous point; the Abyssinian butcher-king did not manage to ‘recover’ anything from the ‘imperialist onslaught’, but did carry out a colonial onslaught on the Oromos, the Sidamas, the Ogadenis, the Afars, the Shekachos, the Anuaks, the Kaffas, the Kambaatas and others.

And Haile Selassie did not overthrow the Italian colonial administration; British forces did. Along with the British there were some Abyssinian ‘irregular forces’. Suffice it to go through Commander in Chief William Platt’s texts and reports, and you understand how clear it was to the British in 1940 – after 60 years of Abyssinian tyranny – the extent to which Haile Selassie was hated by the outright majority of his country.

Point 36

The only ‘sinister reading’ about Abyssinia’s role in the Scramble for Africa is the official version of bogus-History that, uninterruptedly from Amhara monarchical and communist elites to Tigary bogus-republican administration, the tyrannical state has been diffusing – which is what Mammo Muchie pathetically reproduces in his article.

The aberration of the Abyssinian elites is profoundly reviled and totally rejected by historians allover the world; ‘colonial’ powers existed outside Europe as well.

At this point, we should make clear that Colonialism as modern eras’ phenomenon started with the Spaniards and the Portuguese, as it represents a national state’s expansion. Holland, France and England entered into competition, and soon after Russia and Denmark (in Greenland).

During the 19th century, these colonial powers were joined by Belgium, Italy and Germany (in Europe), Japan (in Asia) and Abyssinia (in Africa).

Colonialism does not exclusively mean overseas adventures; it can be simple geographical expansion and occupation of adjacent territories by military force.

When it comes to irredentism, we cannot call the attempt ‘colonial’; Greece’s military campaign in Anatolia (1920 – 22) was not a colonial affair, as long as there were Greeks living in that part of Turkey.

But – to focus on fake ‘Ethiopia’ – were there Abyssinians living in Sidama Land, in Kaffa Kingdom, in Oromia, in Ogaden, in Afar Land, etc.? Certainly not! That is why, briefly said, Menelik’s and Haile Selassie’s policies are purely colonial.

Point 37

As long as Abyssinian elites and their apologists like Mammo Muchie deny the truth about the colonial character of the Abyssinian 19th century invasions, they automatically demonstrate the imminent need for a definite destruction, split, and annihilation of the Cenotaph Abyssinia that under the name ‘Ethiopia’ highlights its preposterous and racist character and nature.

Note
Picture: the Battle of Adwa - not a victory, but a tyrannical state's Myth