How is Ethiopia doing so bad even though they don’t suffer from the effects of colonialism like other African countries?
- Thread starter Cisse78
- Start date
Ethiopia had the same curse of tribalism we just don't notice it as much. They have this tribe called Amharic who see Oromos as inferior. They are Somaliland etc. The whole East Africa is cursed with insanity probably more than West Africa etc. Also bad geographical location like Somalia. There war is bad like Sudan to a point that Somalia is now safer.
Keep it a boqol
VIP
bu but NeVeR bEen CoLoNizEd Saar 🫡
balanbalis
"Ignore" button warrior
Because ethnic groups that historically conflicted were suddenly forced under the banner of the modern day ‘Ethiopia’. Imagine telling an Amhara 500 years ago that they’d be sharing a country with Muslims, Somalis, Oromos etc while living separately from Tigrayans and Tigirinyas. They’d laugh
All the various post WW2 regimes Ethiopia had were autocratic messes, more concerned with maintaining their power than actually developing the nation. This in spite of the fact that Ethiopia was being given heavy support from the west in the form of billions in aid. Its really telling how bad things were that Ethiopians were willing to overthrow their 700+ year old ruling dynasty so they can finally attempt some form of modernization and economic reforms that Haile Selassie largely neglected. But that ended up largely being a pipe dream seeing how badly the Derg messed things up and so the post Cold War governments of Zenawi and Abiy tried to pick up the pieces with mixed results.
But really I think the heart of the problem really come down to a lack of cohesive identity and unity among Ethiopians. There are two types of Ethiopian identities: you have the original "real" one that has its roots within the Christian Habesha highlands, and you have the modern Ethiopian identity which consists of a vague pastiche of ethnicities that share little in common with each other. The former identity historically was the main driver of Ethiopia and consisted of ethnicities (Amhara, Tigrayan, Gurage ect) that largely shared similar cultures, politics, and geography while the former identity consist of newly conquered groups. Now large diverse countries can be functional as seen with Indonesia but Ethiopia historically had a heavy handed approach when it came to managing its diverse population. Key examples being the forced Amharaization under Haile Selassie, to its violent suppression of separatism to its implementation of ethnic federalism.
But really I think the heart of the problem really come down to a lack of cohesive identity and unity among Ethiopians. There are two types of Ethiopian identities: you have the original "real" one that has its roots within the Christian Habesha highlands, and you have the modern Ethiopian identity which consists of a vague pastiche of ethnicities that share little in common with each other. The former identity historically was the main driver of Ethiopia and consisted of ethnicities (Amhara, Tigrayan, Gurage ect) that largely shared similar cultures, politics, and geography while the former identity consist of newly conquered groups. Now large diverse countries can be functional as seen with Indonesia but Ethiopia historically had a heavy handed approach when it came to managing its diverse population. Key examples being the forced Amharaization under Haile Selassie, to its violent suppression of separatism to its implementation of ethnic federalism.
I'd say this is mostly right but what your missing is the actual reason why Ethiopia isn't more developed.
Ethiopia at the beginning of the 1800s was an essentially feudal state. They were at a comparable level of development to 10th century Europe. There was no large towns or any cities with the exception of gondar the capital. Which meant there was no urban class. All writing was produced by the church and a few of them served as scribes for the nobility. You cant really introduce any new technology or knowledge or skills if there aren't any towns for you to develop or class of urban people to use these new technologies and knowledge.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that while the rest of subsharan africa might have been 2 thosuand years behind Europe. Ethiopia was with the exception of firearms 1000 years behind.
This is actually a really intresting point. I do remember reading somewhere about the stuff the italains built in the 5 years they were in control of Ethiopia. I wonder how much this contributed to helping Selassie and later Ethiopian governments control the country more effectively.
I'm so confused by it from the way Ethiopians talk I thought they would be leagues ahead of somalia and somaliland but then I see articles of them in both places being refugees and immigrants???? While they all say our country sucks like what in the hell is going on? Also wasn't there an Ethiopian women arrested for saying the wages are better in somaliland than in Ethiopia. I know their inflation is bad and the ethnic tensions are high but damn is it actually that bad
Because it was an empire ruled by a monarchy, it just makes sense federalism was never gonna work, also look at their urban % compared to us, throughout their history they were semi nomadic never settled until Menelik and the later leaders like Menelik and Mengistu were too busy doing xasuq to worry abour urbanisation, industrialization and development.
Even after opening up to world trade most of their economy was Coffee from Harar and and gold
Even after opening up to world trade most of their economy was Coffee from Harar and and gold
While its true that the feudal structure and low level of urbanization ultimately nerfed Ethiopia, they weren't really far behind most of SSA. The likes of pre-modern Kenya and Botswana were arguably even more primitive yet today those nations are ahead of Ethiopia. I talk about their 20th century history because it was an ample opportunity for them to shed their poverty and illiteracy yet they couldn't. That reflects a deeper problem within Ethiopian society and culture than anything else.
Oh I was taking her question in the sense that why wasnt Ethiopia more developed along global standards since it was an organized state before colonization.
But to your point Ethiopia was a deeply feudal society . On top of that it absorbed the majority of its pouplation through expansion when it didnt have the technology or the infrastructure to assimilate such a huge amount of people. There was also before rhe overthrow of Selassie no huge change in the social structure of the country. Whereas the rest of subsharan africa were entirely new societies created by colonization
A historically poor, feudal empire ruled by emperors, some illiterate, expands into a multiethnic state by conquering surrounding territories filled with culturally and linguistically distinct groups. The empire transforms into a modern “nation-state,” but instead of cohesion, it inherits an even greater diversity it struggles to manage.
Over the decades, different regimes try and mostly fail to forcibly assimilate these populations into a single national identity, often through centralized rule, cultural imposition, and suppression of native languages and customs. The result is a recurring cycle: heavy-handed rule breeds resentment, resistance leads to conflict, and one dominant group is replaced by another, who repeats the same pattern in a different costume. Every regime claims it’s different. Imperialists, Marxists, ethnic federalists, and populists have all taken turns. All failed miserably.
There have been few serious efforts to improve the lives of the peasantry or working class. Development often serves the elite and their propaganda, not the people. The state remains too large, too ethnically fragmented, and too historically fractured to be governed by brute force but also too divided for true democratization, which tends to unleash deep-seated ethnic rivalries and calls for secession.
Now various powerful ethnic factions compete to exploit, dominate, and subjugate each other. Each group that ascends to power does so not with a vision to unify or advance the nation, but to extract resources, settle scores, and empower their own. Rather than building a collective future, the state is a battlefield of rotating elites living off the labor of the rural masses.
The end.
Over the decades, different regimes try and mostly fail to forcibly assimilate these populations into a single national identity, often through centralized rule, cultural imposition, and suppression of native languages and customs. The result is a recurring cycle: heavy-handed rule breeds resentment, resistance leads to conflict, and one dominant group is replaced by another, who repeats the same pattern in a different costume. Every regime claims it’s different. Imperialists, Marxists, ethnic federalists, and populists have all taken turns. All failed miserably.
There have been few serious efforts to improve the lives of the peasantry or working class. Development often serves the elite and their propaganda, not the people. The state remains too large, too ethnically fragmented, and too historically fractured to be governed by brute force but also too divided for true democratization, which tends to unleash deep-seated ethnic rivalries and calls for secession.
Now various powerful ethnic factions compete to exploit, dominate, and subjugate each other. Each group that ascends to power does so not with a vision to unify or advance the nation, but to extract resources, settle scores, and empower their own. Rather than building a collective future, the state is a battlefield of rotating elites living off the labor of the rural masses.
The end.
Neo colonialism
