- Pronouns
- he/him
Discuss the latest article by @Youngmarshall here
The thing I find fascinating there is the 1830s- that sense of an attempt being made by both Britain and the Merina at some sort of mutually (though weighted) beneficial partnership.
And it all falls apart because even Britain attempting to make money by supporting native industries rather than just running it all themselves doesn't really work out. And even the Merina attempting to modernise through domestic industrialisation doesn't really work either.
The picture at the top of the article is a great example of colonialism being unequivocally bad for all involved but being able to be made to look great. I knew that particular one from several French textbooks, but never in quite as large a format. And it has everything going for it: the motion, the colours, the feeling of dominance...
So sort of the French equivalent of this one being our default text book image for colonialism?
View attachment 20860
Ah Ethiopia the perfect combination of a strong African Nation facing a pathetic European one.
Obviously there were also the strong links to Russia, the relative logistics strain the Italians faced, the Ethiopians having a decent exposure to Europe and the Middle East and Asia and also had the logistics to field very large armies which were equipped on par with the Italians.
I'm talking about the next article rather than this one because its very hard to comment on. A bunch of conquering and mass slaving feudal imperialists getting devoured by a richer more technically advanced bunch of mass slaving/or exploiting the fuck out of free labour in unequal economic systems globalist Imperialists.
A simplification but it does seem that what happened was kind of inevitable. The sides too unbalanced, the crippling structural weaknesses too readily apparent.
Ethiopia on the other hand is fascinating in that its almost the reverse the perfect set up for a European disaster in Africa. Even if the Ethiopians were no strangers to badness themselves its hard not to see it as a positive outcome that at least one African state fought free for a time.
a pathetic European one
I stand by it. Its record when it comes to just about everything in the late 1800s onto about 1945 is not one of a successful state.
The way the Italians handled Menelik II diplomatically in the lead up to the war was astoundingly incompetent. I have no idea what they were thinking. Arguably a more experienced colonial nation wouldn't have made those mistakes.
The whole 'oh Ethiopia got lucky they were only facing Italy' thing I've seen elsewhere is not that convincing to me as a whole though. The French and British were also normally operating with small armies on the end of their supply chains too. And given the defeats the British suffered in South Africa and the humiliation the Spanish underwent in Morocco, it feels insulting to argue that no other European army could have run into trouble like that.
Also it rather ignores how cleverly Italy isolated Ethiopia after the Battle of Adwa. They very successfully laid the path for the sequel war which they won handidly.
This is the next article but I think for an African nation to pull off an Adwa they needed.
a) A good leader who had managed to command a united state that could muster a large army (this is not unique to Ethiopia but it's certainly not all that common, a lot of African states such as the Yeke or Merina Kingdoms were basically collapsing already before the Europeans even turned up). One of things I do empathise in the article though is this wasn't the case for Ethiopia either until the decade of the battle. That unity can emerge very quickly.
b) An enemy who is willing to give up. Adwa is most notable for the aftermath in which Ethiopia and Italy agreed a peace. Africans elsewhere did win victories as great as Adwa, Annual or Khartoum are perfect examples, but the Europeans then came back with more men. It needs to not be worth it for them to do that. (Yes, this happened to Ethiopia too, but 40 years later rather than 5).
c) The Ethiopians were a battle hardened army which had been armed by Europeans to fight against a mutual enemy, in this case the Sudanese. The next article goes deep into what weapons they had and where they got them from but in short, a previously good relationship with Europeans was very useful.
I don't think there's any region in Africa where some state could not emerge that ticks a) and c) and I don't think there's a colonial power that couldn't be b) in the right circumstances either. I don't think it had to be Ethiopia and I don't think it had to be Italy.
I'd argue against that.The way the Italians handled Menelik II diplomatically in the lead up to the war was astoundingly incompetent. I have no idea what they were thinking. Arguably a more experienced colonial nation wouldn't have made those mistakes.
The whole 'oh Ethiopia got lucky they were only facing Italy thing' I've seen elsewhere is not that convincing to me as a whole though. The French and British were also normally operating with small armies miles on the end of their supply chains too. And given the defeats the British suffered in South Africa and the humiliation the Spanish underwent in Morocco, it feels insulting to argue that no other European army could have run into trouble like that.
Also it rather ignores how cleverly Italy isolated Ethiopia after the Battle of Adwa. They very successfully laid the path for the sequel war which they won handidly.
This is the next article but I think for an African nation to pull off an Adwa they needed.
a) A good leader who had managed to command a united state that could muster a large army (this is not unique to Ethiopia but it's certainly not all that common, a lot of African states such as the Yeke or Merina Kingdoms were basically collapsing already before the Europeans even turned up). One of things I do empathise in the article though is this wasn't the case for Ethiopia either until the decade of the battle. That unity can emerge very quickly.
b) An enemy who is willing to give up. Adwa is most notable for the aftermath in which Ethiopia and Italy agreed a peace. Africans elsewhere did win victories as great as Adwa, Annual or Khartoum are perfect examples, but the Europeans then came back with more men. It needs to not be worth it for them to do that. (Yes, this happened to Ethiopia too, but 40 years later rather than 5).
c) The Ethiopians were a battle hardened army which had been armed by Europeans to fight against a mutual enemy, in this case the Sudanese. The next article goes deep into what weapons they had and where they got them from but in short, a previously good relationship with Europeans was very useful.
I don't think there's any region in Africa where some state could not emerge that ticks a) and c) and I don't think there's a colonial power that couldn't be b) in the right circumstances either. I don't think it had to be Ethiopia and I don't think it had to be Italy.
My contention is not that Italy didn't screw things up (they did) and then righted the ship somewhat by isolating Ethiopia, it's that calling them pathetic is very much a value judgment which tells us nothing but about a personal bias. Calling them a weak state, or one with an army not suited to do what their ambitions reached up to, that's fine by me. Calling them pathetic, that detracts from the achievements of both the Ethiopian leadership and rank-and-file while being badly redolent of the 'they're Italians, nothing to contribute to this' which we saw produced actual victims by both France and the Uk deciding to ignore first-hand expertise on the handling of COVID-19 just a few weeks ago.