This piece is not an article or a paper in the proper sense of the word. It is a transcript of email exchanges between Yared Terfassa, who defines himself as an Oromo national, and me, an Ethiopianist. The exchanges exhibit a clash of ideas that reflects Ethiopia’s current and major political and ideological divide. The clash gives an idea of the abyss separating the “two Ethiopias” and of the distance each part must go to effect a rapprochement. For convenience, I have clearly separated Yared’s comments and responses from mine.
The how and why of the email exchanges
The initial cause of the exchanges was the note I added to share my latest article, “The Oromo Call for Convergence against Abiy and its Bottleneck,” with some of my Oromo friends. In that note, I wrote the following: “The paper discusses a sensitive issue. I ask readers to pay attention to the fact that it systematically differentiates between the Oromo people and Oromo elites. To distinguish between the two, I have deliberately added to the name “Oromo” terms like elites, intellectuals, groups, politicians, etc. Moreover, keep in mind that I am half Oromo.”
The article with the note reached Yared Terfassa, who emailed me his displeasure with my claim that I am “half Oromo,” even though it is true. I responded by pointing out that his displeasure denotes a definition that is too narrow. After that, the exchanges developed their own momentum and turned into a discussion on the Oromo culture and history. Even if the debate did not conclude with an agreement or synthesis, I decided, after much hesitation, to share it with the Ethiopian public, believing it could be of interest to many readers.
Messay Kebede
######
Yared (Wed. Aug 20, 2025)
Greetings Messay,
Your notification that “I am half Oromo” is, I find, thought-provoking. With indulgence, some thoughts on this matter are shared here.
The relationship you seem to allude exists between the “I” and the “Oromo” is a biological one as the two are connected by the “half.” This is a common but neither apt nor accurate as description or definition for the Oromo identity. The Oromo society, linguistic and cultural group, has existed for at least four millennia. The Oromo has risen high enough, spread far enough, and become distinguished for its excellence in some areas. Given these facts, notable Oromo intellectuals have asserted that the Oromo national identity is not founded on bio-genetic criteria, but on the concept of citizenship or civilization.
It is true that the Oromo civilization has been in decline for dozens of decades now. It is also true that the creation of the Ethiopian Empire in the last quarter of the 19th century has effected a degree of “forgetting” the essence of being an Oromo. Since its creation, Ethiopia has been engaged in an intensive work regarding the Oromo collective memory. Thus, it is no surprise that characterizing the Oromo identity in biological or primordial notions is common, not just with the lay person but, among the literati. But Oromo history is a living history. It is a history that seeks to understand how the past lives on in the present and can serve as a meaningful guide for the future. Just a thought from an Oromo national to a “half-Oromo” Ethiopianist.
Yared Terfassa
######
Messay (Aug 20, 2025)
Dear Yared:
Your comment is well-received. However, I don’t know to what extent what you say about the Oromo identity agrees with what I have read and heard so far. Had it been just a cultural identity, it would have facilitated cultural exchanges with other ethnic groups. Culture becomes exclusive when it is mixed with genetic ingredients, as in the case of Nazi ideology or white colonialism. As merely a cultural phenomenon, it would not have led to displacements of and violent attacks on Amhara and other ethnic groups, who have settled in Oromia for a long time. Rather than openness and tolerance, I note that there is some pursuit of purity that smacks of biological exclusiveness.
I agree: let us keep it cultural, and many of Ethiopia’s problems will find solutions. So that, I expect from you that you condemn the displacements and mass killings of Amhara and other ethnic groups: only thus can you be consistent with your understanding of Oromo identity as a cultural identification.
Messay
######
Yared (Wed, Aug 20, 2025)
Thank you for your rejoinder. It is as thought-provoking as your previous allusion to a notion of Oromo identity.
It is probably true that there are discrepancies between what you have heard and read about the Oromo identity and the actual Oromo identity. As you know, or should know, one aspect of the Oromo struggle is liberation from the Ethiopian State monopoly of information and knowledge production. From Aleqa Bahrey (assuming that he is a fictious character) to Getachew Haile to Mesfin W/Mariam, Ethiopianists have distorted the Oromo history so much that even a segment of the Oromo elite seems to have internalized the manufactured “pagan, uncivilized, and violent” image of the Oromo.
Those of us who have been consuming the unfiltered products of the Ethiopian propaganda machine need to commence sifting the wheat from the chaff. As you know, narratives are not merely a neutral discursive form but rather entail ontological and epistemic choices with distinct ideological and even specific political implications. To paraphrase St. Augustine, it is a man’s tragedy that he consumes the words of the other people, he loses touch with himself, wanders far from his own true identity. A man cannot liberate himself unless he first finds himself.
The fact is Oromo has been a citizenship identity since 1456, Odaa Roobaa (‘The Declaration of Oromo Independence’). Oromo citizenship has been available to all. Many have acquired citizenship by declaring their allegiance to the laws, traditions, and institutions of the Oromo. The diversity within the Oromo society, from Maccaa to Ituu, from Wollo to Borana, is a testament to this fact. Yet, it is simply a fact that not all neighbors avail themselves of it.
Some have instead adopted the tale of the “chosen people” based on the ‘safe arrival’ in Ethiopia of the stolen “Ark of the Covenant” from Israel. The notion of the chosen people has influenced the political thinking of Abyssinians for a long time, culminating in the creation of the Ethiopian Empire. In time, Ethiopian imperialism evolved into Ethiopian Fascism, as evidenced by the attitudes, laws, and endless brutality against the Oromo. Ethiopia became a direct repudiation of the Oromo civilization. Abba Gadaa leaders were hunted down and executed by the current government of Abiy Ahmed in an attempt to deny the Oromo access to the elaboration, preservation, and transfer of cultural memory.
As a consequence, the Oromo are engaged in a struggle to end the violence and oppression. The Oromo struggle for self-determination is a just struggle to make the Oromo people the master of their own memory and forgetfulness. The target of the Oromo struggle has always been articulated in non-biological terms. No single Oromo political organization has identified the Amhara as the enemy. There have been instances where Amhara and Oromo individuals have been targeted by vigilante groups in each other regional states. However, it is overstepping the bounds of reality and morality to analogize the situation in Oromia to Nazi Ideology and to feign ignorance of the “head on a pike” acts against the Oromo by Amhara forces.
Yared
######
Messay (Aug 21, 2025)
Dear Yared
I think our conversation on culture has slightly shifted to other issues, which are (1) the distortion of Oromo history; (2) the mistreatment of the Oromo people under the Ethiopian rule. I don’t know enough about Oromo history to pursue a learned discussion. Still, the little I have read tells me that your rosy description of Oromo expansion and citizenship does not agree with known facts. For instance, the Oromo historian, Mohammed Hassen, speaks of “Oromization” and adds that “the Oromo had made the conquered people gabare,” as a result of which the vanquished “became serfs or clients of the pastoral Oromo, who now demanded service and tribute from them.” (The Oromo of Ethiopia, A History 1570-1860).
The problem is that it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between scholarly studies of Oromo history and those that are imaginary. This reminds me of my university years when Ethiopian radicals (I was one of them) refused to accept the extensive violations of human rights in the then Soviet Union, China, and other socialist countries because the reports offended our belief in the idealness of socialism. I think Oromo elites are in the same situation of denial to protect the idealized picture of Oromo culture since you claim that “no single Oromo political organization has identified the Amhara as the enemy.” The killings and displacements of Amhara who settled in Oromia did not, could not, happen without the blessing of Oromo political organizations, including the Oromo-dominated Prosperity Party.
Anyway, given the deep polarization of the country, it is safe to say that history is used as an ideological weapon to justify extremist political views. Serious and critical reviews by honest and professional historians are in order before using Oromo history to discuss, with some confidence, the truth about the Oromo or Ethiopian expansions and their respective policies of assimilation.
Regarding the second issue, namely the relation between Ethiopian history and the Kibre Negast, a great deal can be said (see my book, Survival and Modernization). First, Ethiopian history too needs to be reviewed, primarily because of its Eurocentric direction. Following the introduction of modern education and the use of Western academic staff, Ethiopian historiography has lost its indigenous basis by adopting the Eurocentric paradigm.
One consequence of Eurocentric modernity, and this is my second point, is the impact it had on the cultural component (for instance, the semitic overtone). Traditionally, the culture excluded no one, and this inclusiveness allowed for expansion. If a native Oromo ras or general had appealed to the Kibre Negast to claim the throne, it would not have been a sufficient ground for his rejection. The feature aligns perfectly with the fact that the Ethiopian throne has been the object of violent competition between claimants from diverse regions. Only when Haile Selassie’s declaration restricted the throne to his descendants did the Ethiopian monarchy become hereditary. The change explains why nobles from the Amhara and Tigrayan regions protested the new constitutional ruling.
All this admits the need to clean up Ethiopian and Oromo histories of all ideological and Eurocentric orientations. Only then can our history cease to be divisive to become the basis for a rapprochement and the construction of a truly united Ethiopia.
Messay
######
Yared (Fri, Aug 22)
I believe we can agree that the Ethiopian problem has not been properly studied. Of course, there have been excellent mid-level analyses about the Ethiopian State as well as the Oromo predicament. But a deeper understanding is required in order to find a humane solution. It is my considered hypothesis that the depravity of Ethiopia’s political situation is not a function of a historiography that has adopted a Eurocentric paradigm.
I contend that 1) the obsession with idea of power, instead of the power of ideas, that extinguished the distinction between the oppressor and the liberator, and, therefore, 2) the teleology of “Ethiopian Unity,” instead a clear vision of life, have been at the root of Ethiopia’s problem. Without a clear vision of life, unity could primarily be achieved by memory erasure and memory creation through the use of violence; violence is what we have gotten. Under such circumstances, the idea and project of Ethiopian Modernization is just a euphemism for the destruction of the Oromo Civilization.
For the Oromo national, the vulgarity of the Ethiopian State, the manufacturing of a new identity (“Ethiopian”), and the pain of betrayal by one’s own elite should not be the grand inquiry at this moment. The urgent task for us is to determine the vision of life that would inspire us. The goals of the Oromo political struggle shall spring from the Oromo identity- Oromo as an ideal; and not just from the experience of being an object of oppression in the Ethiopian Empire. The instrumentalization of the Oromo identity by ethnic entrepreneurs might bring about a pyrrhic victory but only allegiance to the ultimate Oromo reality will bring about lasting peace and prosperity to the Oromo as well as the Horn region as a whole.
The Oromo political class has to decide whether it wants a genuine renaissance of the Oromo ideas and ideals. Or, it has to accept that the Oromo Civilization has declined beyond hope of recovery that its only recourse is to engage in the politics of resentment that it instrumentalizes the history of oppression in order to become the next oppressor and/or empire builder.
Finally, I just want to bring to your attention that a paperback copy of your book is not currently available on Amazon.
Yared
######
Messay (Aug 22, 2025)
Dear Yared:
I don’t know how you can say that “the depravity of Ethiopia’s political situation is not a function of a historiography that has adopted a Eurocentric paradigm” when, a line below, you speak of the “obsession with power” and the lack of “a clear vision” of “Ethiopian unity”. Most historians agree that Eurocentric modernity and European absolutism inspired the centralization of the Ethiopian state, the adoption of the nation-state model, and the policy of assimilation.
I must confess that I have difficulty in understanding the expression “Oromo is an ideal”. Still less do I grasp what your wish to revive “Oromo civilization” means unless you promote the secessionist agenda. I thought that the ideal for all Ethiopians was to build a modern democratic Ethiopia through the equal and free participation of all ethnic groups. The resulting civilization will be Ethiopian in the sense of a synthesis, and not Oromo, Amhara, or any other ethnic group.
Culture change through exchanges with other cultures is a normal and inevitable part of human progress. The pursuit of cultural purity is nothing but fiction. If one were to ask whether you would want to go back to the Oromo culture of the sixteenth or fifteenth century, I am sure you would not like such a proposal. The reason for your refusal would be that we have all tasted the forbidden fruits of all traditional cultures, to wit, Western democracy, rationalism, science, technology, etc.
That said, I really appreciate the choice you present to the Oromo political class. The choice, you say, is between “renaissance” and “the politics of resentment.” Better still, you bring out the logical link between resentment and the quest for domination and dictatorship, since you write that resentment “instrumentalizes the history of oppression in order to become the next oppressor and/or empire builder.” I could not have said it better myself!
The link is indeed not yet crystal clear to the political and intellectual class. Based on complaints about Abiy’s dictatorship, my article suggests that Abiy is the direct product of resentment and that the Oromo politicians and activists “are only reaping what they have sown.” Clearly, the only path to move away from dictatorship is to overcome resentment. The overcoming opens, in turn, the possibility of a sincere and honest dialogue on the construction of a democratic and inclusive Ethiopia.
Thank you for informing me that a paperback copy of my book is not available on Amazon. I will check with the publisher.
Messay
######
Yared (Fri, Aug 22, 2025)
My intention was not to minimize the impact of Eurocentric paradigms on Ethiopian historiography. Rather, I sought to suggest that a solely Eurocentric lens may not fully capture the complexities of Ethiopia’s political landscape.
The “clear vision of life” I mentioned reflects the question of “ultimate reality and ultimate allegiance,” not “Ethiopian Unity.” The lack of long shared memory (except battle victories against the Italians and the Somalis) and shared values continues to be an obstacle to the project of Ethiopian Unity. In spite of the common experience of “suffering together” under successive despotic regimes, from Menilik to Abiy, memory cleavages, among the Oromo and the Amhara and Tigreans in particular, have remained in place. That means, the preoccupation with “Ethiopian Unity” that has been the primary hindrance to the reordering of the empire.
In addition, the justification for the Ethiopian state, as a field of power, and the Oromo, as a value system, are not quite the same. The political boundary of Ethiopia cannot be normatively justified. Nor Ethiopia has a right to exist as a political unit. The political violence, poverty, and the rule by consecutive despotic regimes are indicative of the lack of sufficient justification for the Ethiopian state. The lack of a theologia civilis the source of difficulties that plagued the Ethiopian state as well as most countries in the West and the Middle East. Ethiopianists are heaven-bent on having ‘unity’ without a transcendent truth.
The justification for Oromo renewal, on the other hand, is that it possesses a mythological or spiritual dynamic that provides the energy necessary to sustain a civilization. The Oromo have a unique world outlook. The Oromo concept of Ayyaana, the causal principle through which all things come into being, has enabled the Oromo to create a moral order wherein human life is given the highest value. I acknowledge that there is not universally accepted definition of civilization. I also am aware that some pundits have described the Oromo as a ‘traditionalist’ as opposed to a modern civilization. For the Oromo, modernity did not mean the unabashed pursuit of fame, wealth, and beauty as was the case with Renaissance in Italy beginning the 1450s.
In the 1450s, the time generally considered the start of modernity, the Oromo had established a government whose role was limited through the structure of rights that create individual freedom. The Oromo civilization commitment to individual freedom sprang from the concept of Ayyaana. Religion was a matter of private conscience. The Oromo had introduced a formal equality of citizens, who had the right to take part in assemblies. The Oromo parliament had the right to legislate, levy taxes, and make war. It is true that the Oromo does not encourage an ‘atomized’ picture of the world, separating the individual from the social context as the utilitarians do. The Oromo use of reason when understanding processes in the physical world differs from a priori reasoning. These are the stuff of modernity.
It is my contention that remembering our collective memory and rebuilding our institutions would be the antidote to the politics of resentment as well a panacea for Ethiopian imperial ills. This may sound nostalgic and impracticable; so does democratization of Ethiopia. The journey to democracy in Ethiopia requires a Robespierre, a Mussolini, or Stalin. Abiy seems to want to be one. The choice cannot be clearer.
My view is that pragmatism should not be an excuse for moral laziness. The Oromo cannot run away from its intrinsically good foundational principles and mortgage the future of the nation in the name of “Ethiopian Unity.” At the same time, the Oromo struggle does not, shall not, aspire for cultural or biological purity. The Oromo struggle, in my view, should be the renewal of the value system that allowed the society to accord citizenship, individual and collective, and provided citizens opportunities to achieve excellence or aspire immortality.
We need to approach this with the belief that there could exist multiple centers of civilization and that clash of civilizations is not inevitable. Creative legal and institutional arrangements could be devised to allow the Oromo revival while addressing the social, economic, political, and security interests of all neighboring cultures and societies.
Thank you again for your insightful comments. I will check Amazon again concerning the availability of your book. I value your continued engagement in this important discussion.
Best regards,
Yared
######
Messay (Aug 23, 2025)
I also thank you for the exchange we had. I have enjoyed it, even though it did not move towards a rapprochement.
One last point before we conclude the exchange: I don’t believe that it is necessary to extol a culture beyond the believable to love and identify with that culture. Everybody is born with self-love, and whatever you identify with is your own self. Moreover, nothing in life is perfect. The exposure of a culture’s strengths, weaknesses, and shortcomings is actually an introduction to its academic study.
The above statement means that it is not necessary to defend a culture by showing how modern that culture was. To do so is to become a victim of the Eurocentric paradigm. European history is not the universal yardstick against which non-Western cultures should be judged. They all represented alternative ways of life that were cut short by Western colonial forces and towed into Western modernity. They were all traditional societies because they did not harbor the goal of becoming “master and possessor of nature” (Descartes). In other words, before the colonial period, Oromo and Ethiopian societies were traditional societies. They were following courses of history that were different from the Western one. Their unique value was precisely their particularity.
Regards
Messay