Search:

Polarization about Abyssinia, History, and Historiography

[ Posted On: 2007-06-25 ]

The reaction of readers is one of the most useful benefits for an author; either it pertains to reconsideration of thoughts or it relates to consolidation of arguments, a fruitful discussion helps clarify positions. I received recently a kind letter full of remarks and comments expressed by an Abyssinian Muslim who partly agrees and partly disagrees with my standpoints and approaches.

As Mr. Khalid Abdullahi commented about my article entitled "Abyssinia, Ethiopia, Axum, Meroe, Yemen, History and current Politics" (published on April 21) and criticized my focus on only two among Abyssinia's ethnic groups, namely the Amharas and the Oromos, I have to agree with him, as all my articles about Ogadenis and Sidamas have been posterior to that date! Of course, there are physical limits to every one, and no one can write about all subjects they studied and know.

My opposition to the well articulated letter of this reader is on rather moral issues. History studies human activities, not the endeavours of robots or the actions of animals. I believe there cannot be Human Life without Moral Values and Sublime Virtues to which humans ascribe themselves, and I consequently hold an Immoral History as Impossible – or Inhuman. I will publish integrally (and without editing) his letter first, and then my answer.

A criticism by an Abyssinian Muslim

Dear, Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis,

By chance I found you're article "Abyssinia, Ethiopia, Axum, Meroe, Yemen, History and Modern Politics" I found it to be very interesting but questionable at the same time. Its always interesting to read about history from a different or a new perspective. I always believed that "history belongs to the winners" meaning once you beat your opponent/s all you need is a patriotic historian on your side to distort history. As all cultures are guilty of at one time or another.

For someone who has as much knowledge and achievements as you do I was surprised to realize that all of your articles had a very narrow-goal from set-go. It seems to me that your writing is both political and a here-say. If you need to know, I am NOT reacting to any specific article because I might've been offended.

I hope you will agree with me that racism is not confined to any group. From my experiences its deeply rooted in the African/Arabic countries/cultures. As an African, I have seen racism more prevalent within the its own people and more so within close neighbors. In a country like Ethiopia as you insistently refer to it as Abyssinia, you will find racism is a 2 way lane and sometimes there are way too many lanes. Unique, sadistically creative and self empowering "Derogatory terms" are applied to each other and no one escapes it, be it as victims of it or as perpetrators.

I was astonished to read in one of your articles where you describe the current state in Ethiopia and how the government is comparable or even exceeding the awfully terrible achievements of Nazi-Germany. The interesting thing I found in the article was how you portray one group as victim and the other as genocidal. Keeping in mind that Ethiopia is a very diverse country, the last time I counted there was more than 84 different ethic groups, each with its alliances, new alliances, broken alliances and reinvented alliances. This rapidly evolving human survival instinct is also responsible for much of the historical distortion for various reasons, but primarily used for confidence building of a group.

As you also know there have been so many religious and ethnical wars in Ethiopia, and you will find that there might've been more than 2 tribes/ethnic groups evolved at any given time.

It would be like giving all the glory of War World 2 to the Americans or the Russians, as we all know that so many nations from different fronts had played parts. I am not trying to give you a history lesson as I am aware you are well informed than I am.

The good part is that some of your articles have an insight, give good facts, interesting point of views and attempt to create good discussions just as Martin Bernal's Black Athena did. For me though is that the book Black Athena questions itself or foresees another point of-view arising from its own and attempts successfully in challenging these views. That doesn't mean I wholly agree with the book but it keeps reminding me what history is all about.

On the other hand I found way too many inconsistencies in your articles to list. especially from someone who has studied and has became an expert in so many admirable historical fields. This leads me to arrive to these questions - How is it possible for someone to gather current facts and get it so wrong that its becomes so unbelievable? And if he or she can't gather current facts then how can that person dictates to us that his or hers historical fact gatherings are to be considered?

Thank you for your time,

Khalid Abdullahi

My answer to the aforementioned letter is hereby fully reproduced.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your mail and time.

As regards the article "Abyssinia, Ethiopia, Axum, Meroe, Yemen, History and Modern Politics", I want to specify that I simply reproduced data and interpretations shared by the world's leading specialists, as well as discussions we had in the Gueze seminars conducted (at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes IVeme section) by Maxime Rodinson, my professor.

To this I added my criticism and my considerations, but my overall presentation did not consist in a groundbreaking approach – contrarily to other contributions of mine.

Certainly, there is a vast difference between what colonial academics teach at home and what is taught in the colonial realms by the colonial academics' students.

The formation of the colonized countries' elites

This teaching material and interpretational approach difference is one of the top desiderata of the colonial powers; when students originating from the elite of the colonized countries study along with European native students in the colonial academic establishments, the colonial academics never present to the former the key data and the interpretational tools they offer to the latter.

This method results in a great number of academically useless papers, namely the dissertations of the students of colonized realms; these papers are truly speaking 'bon pour l' Orient', academic 'products' geared only for local use by these students in their country of origin. Using these practically speaking false degrees, these cheated students get recognition only back in their countries, being unable to be accepted in similar positions in Europe.

What these unfortunate students can teach when back home is therefore absolutely conditioned by the false guidance of which they fall victims first.

Event and History

There are certainly many ways for someone to see / stand in front of an event, but the only that is ultimately valid and morally acceptable is the human one.

Certainly a fight ends up with a victory (for part A) and a defeat (for part B).

However, this does not imply either that part A was correct, worthy and acceptable or that part A obtained / achieved the Ultimate Victory that is irreversible.

Time modifies earlier battle results, and the final outcome may at times be an affair of hundreds of years. History does not allow us so far to conclude about the final outcome of so many battles and wars fought by invariantly transformed adversaries.

In the end, what matters is mostly the ideas for which part A and part B fought.

For instance, Germany won over France in 1870; but that victory was cancelled in 1918!

What does it truly matter if you lose today and then after 48 years you eliminate your opponent from overseas power and presence (Germany was deprived of all its colonies in 1918)?

Then Germany won again over France in 1940; but France's allies were enough to secure France a place among the final winners.

The perplexity of the clashes among peoples and nations is far more sophisticated than this. As a matter of fact, might is not right.

'Might is Right': a materialist axiom

To accept your theory that "History belongs to the winners" one should be basically a materialist and narrow-minded person. It is a narrow-minded person's action because it demonstrates inability to anticipate (let alone envision) different developments in the future. It is relevant to materialism as it places events on a setup that is thought to be complete with the end of someone's life. For instance, Might is Right only if you examine Stalin's deeds perpetrated by the Soviet dictator during his lifetime; but where is all the dictator's might now? Who accepts or venerates the Soviet dictator's policies and ideas now?

Same facts, different interpretation

You ask how, although we refer to the same facts, my interpretation is so different than yours; I do not know what your interpretation might be. It might not be even an interpretation, but the wrong perception of the mistakenly selected facts.

What many people who did not properly study History do not understand is that the context within an event is placed by the commentator / observer matters tremendously. If an analyst describes the recent fratricidal events at Gaza, viewing them within Palestinian context only, he will certainly be erroneous, even if he analyzes them accurately, because he will fail to place them within the wider context of the Middle Eastern conflicts, America's war against the Islamic Terrorism, Iran's attempt to become a nuclear power, etc.

Furthermore, one should use the correct terminology for the events. To give an example, referring to your text, I would say that what you say about Abyssinia as "a very diverse country" is absolutely absurd, criminally erroneous, and definitely perfidious. You cannot call the Abyssinian tyranny as 'diversity''! Indeed, diversity you have when many people agree to live together, preserving each one their identity.

A tyranny of many peoples is not the realm of Diversity!

You don't have 'diversity' in the case of the various criminal and inhuman invasions carried out by Menelik and Haile Selassie. What you have in this case of lewd and illiterate gangsters has to be named inhuman disregard for the Values of other nations, lawless plans of exploitation of the other peoples' resources, and serial crimes that ended up in genocides.

After all, the diversity you are talking about is rejected by these 'diverse' and oppressed peoples who do not want to let Amhara and Tigray ruled Abyssinia further use the name of Ethiopia anymore, as it is relevant of Kushitic, not Semitic, identity.

Finally, I would disagree with you and your perception of some Africans as more racist than the colonials, but this remains secondary within the context of your letter,

Thank you for your time.

Prof. Dr. M. S. Megalommatis

Article Source: http://www.afroarticles.com/article-dashboard

About The Author: Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis - is Orientalist, Assyriologist, Egyptologist, Iranologist, Islamologist, Historian and Political Scientist. Dr. Megalommatis, 49, is the author of 12 books, dozens of scholarly articles, hundreds of encyclopedia entries, and thousands of articles. He speaks, reads and writes more than 15, modern and ancient, languages.

| View Profile & All Articles By: Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis |

		Post Comment
		Blog This Article!
		Discuss Article in Forum(s)
		Publication \| Reprint Terms

Please Rate this Article

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive Opinion Articles Via RSS!

| Category Feeds | All-in-one Feed | Other Feed & Syndication Options |

Additional Articles From - Home | Society & Culture | Opinion

	Print This Article
	Post Comment
	Add To Favorites
	Email To Friends
	Ezine Ready \| Syndication
	Make PDF Article
	Post To del.icio.us
	Post To Furl
	Add To Google Bookmarks
	Submit To Netscape
	Add To Yahoo! My Web
	Add Main Feed To Outlook
	Post to BookMarks @ AfroArticles.com

	Post To BookMarkAfrica.com

Site Home

Article Categories

More Search Options

Site Map

Submit Articles

Top Authors

Most Recent Articles