I can no longer find the series of comments from Merhawie that relate to Eritrea, but maybe some one else can. They deserve a response. Merhawie took proper exception to my casual statement on the origin of the name ‘Eritrea’, and then wrote about Eritrea’s distant past. I respond to that here, and hope to learn one of these days how to reconstruct a series of comments so that they can be followed in sequence.
Thanks to you, Merhawie for your comments. First, an acknowledgement of careless wording in my earlier comment: ‘Eritrea’ was, as you say, not a name invented by Italy. It was a name rescued from oblivion by Italy and used for a completely new purpose: as a name for its new colony. Until then, ‘Eritrea’ was barely remembered as the name of a body of water.
On your main point – does Eritrea have a distant past as a separate political entity – it’s time for Eritreans to put aside the fantasy that it does. Eritrea began life as an Italian colony, so named by Italy in 1890. Despite some Eritrean fears, this short past does not affect its legitimacy. Inventing an ancient Eritrea adds nothing and is not worth the effort.
Most of the territory that is Eritrea today was part of the Empire of Aksum (I accept your Aksum/Axum convention), the internationally recognized power in first millennium, well known during the first millennium in the Mediterranean world and the Persian Gulf. ‘Eritrea’ at that time was what we call the Red Sea today, not a city, region, country or empire. Today’s Eritrean highlands and eastern lowlands were part of Aksum, though some parts of today’s Eritrea, such as the western lowlands, were probably not ruled by Aksum. On this we are on the same page.
Eritrea’s legitimacy has adequate roots in modern history. Italy appropriated land that had been part of the ancient Empire of Aksum, and some land that had not. The Abyssinian/Ethiopian Empire, the successor to Aksum, controlled more of future Eritrea when it was strong, and less when it was weak. During the Fascist era, it controlled none of it, of course.
Broadly speaking, this parallels what colonial Europe did throughout Africa. They grabbed what they could and then lost it after World War II. The collapse of the colonial system led to the gradual emergence of dozens of legitimate African nations. Eritrea is one of them.
The process that created these nations in Africa was not simple, clean or fair (‘history’ is never ‘fair’). It took Europe many hundreds of years to form nations. Germany, Italy and Belgium didn’t emerge until the 19th century. The process is unfinished even today in both Europe and Africa. The USSR broke up less than 20 years ago, leaving unstable pieces where fighting still flares. The two Somaliland colonies became independent in Somalia in 1960 but the former British colony, Somaliland, has been seeking independent recognition since 1991. And then there is the 1998-2000 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The surface issue was the border, which implies separate states whose precise limits need to be defined. Deeper issues and tensions also exist between the two, but Eritrea’s legitimacy is universally accepted.
The world recognizes Eritrea not because it believes there was an ancient Eritrea but because it emerged from the same recent post-colonial process that saw the birth of almost all of today’s sovereign African nations. Ethiopia, Liberia and South Africa are among the few conspicuous exceptions to this process, each with its own unique history.
Eritreans should relax. Their nation is a fact. Eritrea will be judged by how well it looks after the interests of the Eritrean people, not by its legitimacy.
Comments are closed or deactivated
Hello Shlomo,
First I apologize for the tardiness of my response, I assumed you would somehow link your response. Anyway, my comments that your are referring to can be found here:
http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/horn-of-africa/2009/03/14/bad-borders-make-bad-neighbors/
or here:
http://blog.merhawie.com/2009/06/12/questions-of-eritrean-history
Secondly, my point as to Eritrea existing as a separate political entity was, I believe, misunderstood. I had not intended it to be understood as “Eritrea ha[s] a distant past as a separate political entity.” Obviously, as we have both pointed out there was no political entity named Eritrea. Instead, my point was that the peoples that are now a part of Eritrea were not a part of Ethiopia. In fact, even more importantly, they were not a single political entity at all, but numerous, political entities. What they had of course in common was not being under Ethiopian dominion (this will be clarified once you read on).
You do however make a very interesting point about the extent of power of Aksum. From combining this post and the ones before are we to understand that you believe that the successors of past empires are to rule the lands that they once did. What is interesting is that this idea was shared with Il Duce (Mussolini) about resurrecting the Roman Empire. This was obviously of great concern to the leaders of Greece at the time and surely France. Obviously I think we can both agree that that is not what you meant. What is more important however, is this connection in the minds of many of a connection between Aksum and Ethiopia. This connection is tenuous at best.
Perhaps one could argue that the connection between Aksum and “modern Ethiopia” (and I know I am using the phrase casually) is spirit but that would not give a basis for their territorial ambitions. Instead they try to claim some sort of administrative connection, this of course has yet to be found. Until that time (if it ever comes) let us no longer consider Aksum and Ethiopian empire, shall we?
Thirdly, no Eritrean historian (or historian studying in Eritrea) is attempting to create a myth of ancient Eritrea, the idea is ludicrous, nigh, its suggestion is ridiculous. Rather, what is now being studied and investigated is that the balance of history, that not focused around Axum be unearthed and added to the history books. As you I am sure you will recall from secondary school, colonialists tend to whitewash or destroy the history of natives, well at long last these aboriginals are trying to resurrect their own history, not to fit a political ideology, but to inform it. We recognize that those who do not study their history are doomed to have it repeated.
Finally I find your word choice, particularly “fantasy”, pejorative. In fact, we don’t have to go very far to find that the peoples of Eritrea have a distinct history from those Ethiopia, although interrelated they are not unified. Much as France and Britannia’s history’s are interrelated but not singular.
Also, let me agree with you that Eritrea’s historical legitimacy is not on trial here (or anywhere else for that matter), instead, due to the work of a number of historians, it is under continual improvement. Furthermore, how can we Eritreans possibly relax, consider countries like the United States and Canada who are on alert because the enemy is seemingly at the gates, but I must remind you, for Eritreans the enemy is not at the gates, he is in our foyer, Eritrea is under occupation by Ethiopians. And you Shlomo do not decry this fact, instead it seems you want Eritreans to accept it.