Controstoria. Etiopia tra miti, leggende......e finzione. Etiopia (ed Eritrea) una nazione un popolo. Schiavismo in etiopia. Excerpt from the Book: Fight and integration. Author: Mekuria Bulcha.Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, Uppsala.Ref. Sh.34/Sh.35 only.---- QuoteAbyssinian rules usually justify the conquest in terms of reinstitution of Abyssinia's old frontiers or the unification of Ethiopia. Lately some ethiopian writers and politicians have added anti-imperialism, or attempt to forestall imperialist advances in the Horn of Africa, to the list of motives for conquest of the south (Teshome Kebede, 1982). It is maintained that Abyssinian conquest and annexation of adjacent territories during the Scramble of Africa was a "feudal expansion" and not a colonial undertaking. The underdeveloped state of the abyssinian forces of production at that time of conquest is cited as supportive argument . Regarding the development of productive forces it is argued that colonialism is and can only be a product of capitalism, and that "a colonial relationship does not and cannot possibly exist between the conquered and the conqueror of the Ethiopian empire". This assumption tends also to erroneously relate colonialism with the race and the colour and posit that Abyssinian who are Africans and black cannot be colonialist.....The fallacy of the argumentsNone of these argument in defence of conquests finds concrete validity when the historical relation between Abyssinia and the conquered territories, the linkage between the Abyssinian conquest and expansionism and imperialism and the treatment of the subjects peoples under the rule of Abyssinian, mainly Amhara, conquerors are critIcally examinated.The reinstitution of the lost territories and the unification argument lacks of validity for several reasons. As we have already mentioned the Abyssinian were not in control of the south until the end of 19th century. They had only sporadic contacts with some of Sidama kings and had extracted occasional tributes from theme, but sustained Abyssinian control over whole area lack of valid historical support.Hence of "unification" is not found a plausible argument since it si not possible to unify or talk about the unification of a country that did not exist before. The name Ethiopia, which was taken from the Bible where it is referred to black peoples and not a specific region or nation, come into common use only after the end of World War II. Before that its use in reference to Abyssinia or part of Horn of Africa had been inconsistent and rare.In addition, it is very difficult to conceive of treatment of the local population by the conquerors as an act of unification. As we shall see in a later section the inhabitants of the conquered territories were subjected to the characteristic colonial treatment: they were sold as slaves and exploited as gabbar or serfs.....----- UnquoteL' Espansionismo Abissinio e l'Impero d'Etiopia.
Controstoria. Etiopia tra miti leggende ...... e finzione.
Controstoria. Etiopia tra miti, leggende......e finzione. Etiopia (ed Eritrea) una nazione un popolo. Schiavismo in etiopia. Excerpt from the Book: Fight and integration. Author: Mekuria Bulcha.Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, Uppsala.Ref. Sh.34/Sh.35 only.---- QuoteAbyssinian rules usually justify the conquest in terms of reinstitution of Abyssinia's old frontiers or the unification of Ethiopia. Lately some ethiopian writers and politicians have added anti-imperialism, or attempt to forestall imperialist advances in the Horn of Africa, to the list of motives for conquest of the south (Teshome Kebede, 1982). It is maintained that Abyssinian conquest and annexation of adjacent territories during the Scramble of Africa was a "feudal expansion" and not a colonial undertaking. The underdeveloped state of the abyssinian forces of production at that time of conquest is cited as supportive argument . Regarding the development of productive forces it is argued that colonialism is and can only be a product of capitalism, and that "a colonial relationship does not and cannot possibly exist between the conquered and the conqueror of the Ethiopian empire". This assumption tends also to erroneously relate colonialism with the race and the colour and posit that Abyssinian who are Africans and black cannot be colonialist.....The fallacy of the argumentsNone of these argument in defence of conquests finds concrete validity when the historical relation between Abyssinia and the conquered territories, the linkage between the Abyssinian conquest and expansionism and imperialism and the treatment of the subjects peoples under the rule of Abyssinian, mainly Amhara, conquerors are critIcally examinated.The reinstitution of the lost territories and the unification argument lacks of validity for several reasons. As we have already mentioned the Abyssinian were not in control of the south until the end of 19th century. They had only sporadic contacts with some of Sidama kings and had extracted occasional tributes from theme, but sustained Abyssinian control over whole area lack of valid historical support.Hence of "unification" is not found a plausible argument since it si not possible to unify or talk about the unification of a country that did not exist before. The name Ethiopia, which was taken from the Bible where it is referred to black peoples and not a specific region or nation, come into common use only after the end of World War II. Before that its use in reference to Abyssinia or part of Horn of Africa had been inconsistent and rare.In addition, it is very difficult to conceive of treatment of the local population by the conquerors as an act of unification. As we shall see in a later section the inhabitants of the conquered territories were subjected to the characteristic colonial treatment: they were sold as slaves and exploited as gabbar or serfs.....----- UnquoteL' Espansionismo Abissinio e l'Impero d'Etiopia.
