The Jewish community in Ethiopia, labeled in the past as Falasha or Beta Israel, is perceived in Israel as a traditional-religious community which, while in Ethiopia, conducted its life in isolation from its inimical neighbors and from the processes unfolding around it, with all its aspirations focused on immigrating to Israel.
A new study, which I conducted, reveals that men and women in this community were political activists and members of Marxist underground movements during the revolutionary years and civil war in that country (from the 1970s until 1991). Acquaintance with the role of Ethiopian Jews in these movements may change the commonly held image of this community in Israeli eyes. (The study is published in the Hebrew book, “The Other Journey: Life Stories of Ethiopian Jews, Activists in the Ethiopian Civil War 1974 – 1991.”)
In the first half of the 1960s, it seemed that the Ethiopian empire was more stable than ever. Emperor Haile Selassie and his right-hand man Aklilu Habte-Wold charted the state’s path through the troubled waters of African politics, navigating the rivalry of the superpowers as well as the upheavals in the Middle East. The fact that an Eritrean struggle for independence, a string of local uprisings in other areas of Ethiopia and a coup attempt in 1960 did not manage to shake the throne contributed to an almost mythic view of Haile Selassie, indicating that he may rule for many years to come, contingent on his health.
Things began to change dramatically starting in the mid-1960s, when students at the Haile Selassie University (later the Addis Ababa University) began organizing and protesting against the ossified regime. Gradually, under the influence of students who had studied at foreign universities (mainly in Western Europe and North America), they started taking interest in Marxist ideas, subsequently becoming more radical. Their demands included education for all, democratization, equality and the right of self-determination for diverse ethnic and linguistic groups, a demand which conflicted with the imperial policy of giving supremacy to Amharic. They also demanded the distribution of land to farmers who were working them in practice (in contrast to a quasi-feudal control of the land which was common in many areas in the days of the emperor), as well as other demands.
. . . .
Clinton supporters must be proud. Remember the words of one of your post-modernist philosophers: “I think that a good Left is a party that always thinks about the future and doesn’t care much about our past sins.”
—“Results of the Obama Administration (with Mrs. Clinton as a Secretary of State) humanitarian mission in Libya. USAF bombed Qaddafi out of existence and supported “freedom fighters” who happened to be ISIS. Qaddafi was sodomized with a bayonet for 4 hours before he died. Remember how Mrs. Clinton was laughing about it on the NBC? Libya went down the drain and is run by criminals. It is a pipeline of illegal migration to Europe and the slave trade (you can call it politely “human trafficking”). These ones were trafficked…”—
Farmers (Boer) blocked highways leading in and out major cities. The aim is to spread awareness in South Africa about the disproportionate white farm murders. The Government doesn’t seem to care about this issue. The farmers encourage people to wear black in solidarity.
This is the first step the Afrikaner has taken since Apartheid. This movement has no name yet, but you can search it through #blackmonday.
Fascinating history lesson from a pseudonymous friend:
People often ask why Europeans profited so much from the slave trade but not the African princes who sold Men like cattle**?
The reason is that it took our princes more than two and a half centuries to accept developments in the theory of money and for these theories to proliferate. Thus, even as the world changed around them and the competition for slaves broke the Portuguese and then Spanish monopsony’s over the trade, the prevailing theories of money on the Guinea Coast barely felt a dent. The African princes preferred not coin or gold but exchanges in kind. They battered ivory, gold and humans for technology, fabrics and beverages. These exchanges obeyed certain ratios that endured for more than two centuries. Attempts to convert some of the more influential princes to coinage and the like failed. In any case it was not in the interest of the Europeans who subscribed to an entirely different theory of money to disabuse these princes of their traditions. (Here I must add that those Europeans who attempted to pay slave traders not in kind, i.e according to the established commodity ratios were often rebuffed or met with suspicion). In this manner, items that were almost worthless in Europe due to improvements in technology and production could still command very high “prices” in Africa because our princes preferred to batter.
If you are thinking that the Africans were thus cheated, you know nothing. In fact you re less than a fool. (Have you perhaps been reading too many marxists and afrocentrists?) The real looting and “underdevelopment” began the day the Europeans convinced Africans to accept fiat (i.e. to work and pay taxes in a coin controlled by Europeans).
** The alternative to slavery under some circumstances was human sacrifice.
Can we sort ideologies between those justifying the strong (“right wing” / imposing karma / marketplace for competition), and those justifying the weak (“left wing” / demand sharing / not leaving anyone behind).
Why is it that the ideologies that justify the weak always attempt to deny and destroy heritage?
From economic Marxism to cultural Marxism to Pan-Africanism. What is it about appealing to the weak that requires the left to destroy everyone’s heritage?
friend of mine:
—“Execution of Americo-Liberians (descendants of freed American Slaves) who imposed tyrany and slavery on the autochonous groups in Liberia.
Pan-africanists have never learned from this brutal lesson. You may read the histories of modern west Africa and nevrr learn why the seria leonians and Liberians fought brutal civil wars.”—
Did blacks sell blacks?
I will give you a truly remarkable example.
In the 1930s the True Whig Party – a party composed almost exclusively of the descendants of freed American slaves – sold hundreds of Africans to the island of Fernando Po. They also voted to reinstitute the institution of forced (indentured) labour.
This was more than a century after the abolition of slavery in England.
Let that sink in.
A Zimbabwe deadline for all firms to transfer most of their shares to black Zimbabweans has passed, but it is not clear how many have complied.
The government had said that companies should meet the requirements of a 2008 indigenisation law by the end of March.
Theoretically, non-compliance could lead to a company losing its license.