I have to take to task David Yeagley's long, interesting, but subtly flawed article on imperialism. He titles it, "The Meaning of Nationhood in a Globalist Society" and it was a speech presented at the Phi Beta Delta International Honor Society in April 2010.
I would like to first direct my criticism at the quote attributed to me in the speech in this blog post. I might take up his other points in later blog entries. He says:
There are African thinkers who, like Kidist Paulos Asrat, believe the African nations are all quite artificial, with boundaries superimposed by European imperial powers; some believe the African nations should be re-divided and re-established according to tribes, not according to economic resources—of benefit principally to the imperial powers drawing the boundaries.First of all, Yeagley always refers to me as "African," "Ethiopian" and at one instance as "woman of the world." If he had qualified his "African" with "Canadian of African descent," perhaps we might have had a pleasant interaction going. But, his bottom line is his bottom line, and I have some pretty clear ideas why he's doing so. There's a funny quote by Camus where Camus says: "I believe in justice, but I'll defend my mother before justice." It reminds me of Yeagley who might say: "I believe in truth, but I will defend my Comanche tribe before truth." That is my harsh judgment. And Yeagley has many erudite and interesting ideas, but at the end of the day, they are tainted with this philosophy. So be it.
Back to African nations. I’ve never, in my forum interactions on his site, ever talked about "artificial" African nations with "boundaries superimposed by European imperial powers." His paraphrasing is incorrect. In fact, that sort of opinion reeks of leftist oppressive ideology, which I don’t subscribe to one bit. There are many reasons why the European powers created those boundaries. And, in spite of everything, these boundaries actually seem to work, so they were not so "artificial" after all. The Tutsi and Hutu case is extraordinary, in my opinion.
What I’ve talked about is the Ethiopian Empire, if you will, which was fully established in the 19th century, having started in the 18th. It was an empire created by the Amhara emperors. The Amhara were the single ruling tribe since the beginning of Christian Ethiopia. These emperors consolidated the various regions, including the Muslim regions in the southeast, the non-Amahara regions south and southwest, the Tigray and now what is known as Eritrea in the north, to create their Empire. My interpretation of this empire building is that it was: part missionary - to form one Christian nation by saving all these “heathens;” a way of controlling invading tribes from the south, who were encroaching into Amhara territory over the centuries; and the Ethiopians following the Europeans’ trend of colonizing African lands.
Imperialism is a complicated, subtle, geography-specific, ethnicity-specific enterprise. I think the overall effect of (and reason for) this Ethiopian empire-building was benign and beneficiary. All ethnicities within that empire were considered Ethiopians, and during Emperor Haile Selassie’s reign, there was even a sort of “affirmative action” where the Amhara were at times displaced for the benefit of these other tribes.
But, the consequences were tragic. This amalgam of peoples, this multi-ethnic, multicultural, multi-faith society finally fell apart. The poorer, southern tribes could never really catch up with the established northerners. Envy and disappointment was rampant. This finally resulted with Mengisut Haile Mariam, the Communist dictator, whose sole mission was to destroy the Amhara. By trying to do so, he almost succeeded in destroying Ethiopia. But, the problem was also with the Amharas. Their leaders were so steeped in Marxist and leftist ideologies that they never battled the premises of an imposter like Haile Mariam.
So, Yeagley is right that imperialism is a difficult structure with which to rule countries. But, its modus operandi is highly idiosyncratic, differing from region to region. Also, for empires to survive, some group has to take the reins and the leadership. The leadership has to be based on common traditional structures and some kind of transcendental belief system. The Ethiopian Empire was based on centuries of Christianity, and the leadership that the Amhara brought along with them. Once these became undermined, it became difficult to rule the country, and charlatans like Haile Mariam had easy access to wreak havoc.
One more thing I would like to add. Yeagley spends ample time on ancient Middle Eastern empires, and writes effusively on the Persian Empire. Yet, he hasn't even bothered to check his facts, or make some effort at informing himself on this particular "African" empire. He writes as though he doesn't even know that Ethiopia was never colonized, and that the Ethiopian "boundaries" that he attributes me to commenting on were not a result of European colonization, but of Ethiopian “colonization,” if you will.
I will leave alone my speculations on Yeagley's dearth of knowledge on African, and specifically Ethiopian, history, given that he has interacted with me numerous times on his forums. But it is fascinating to try and figure out what induces people to close off their curiosity.