Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Kuwee Kumsa
English translation
Three subtle but strong interrelated messages jump out from this
song. One is that women are objects and people do things for them. They
just tighten their belts and passively wait for whatever men, the subjects,
decide to d o with them. The second message is the loud gendered
nationalism. In a nation that acclaims and praises only the courageous and
the strong national, the woman is a national only through the strength and
courage of her son. In this song the word male is synonymous with hero. A
hero is only a male, a son, not a woman, or a daughter. The mother of a male
[a hero] is considered a hero [male] herself by tightening her girdle and
waiting. The epitome of women is the one whose son is the hero who goes
out and dies for her liberation. The third message suggests that salvation
comes from without. Liberation is something that males [heroes] go out and
Amharas responding to
Budaas:
Amaarooch! Amaarooch!
Min tibelaallachihu?
Min tixexxaallachihu?
Abeet! Abeet!
Ye Beree Sigaa!
Xej! Xej!
Oh Amharas! Oh Amharas!
What do you eat? What do
you eat?
What do you drink? What
do you drink?
Yes! Yes!
Beef! Beef!
Mead! Mead!
Budaas Responding to
Amharas:
Budooch! Budooch!
Min tibelaallaachihu?
Min tixexxaallachihu?
Abeet! Abeet!
Ye feres sigaa!
Shint! Shint!
Yes! Yes!
Horse meat! Horse meat!
Urine! Urine!
Addressing IdentityDifference
Identity and difference, Connolly (1991) argues, are a paradoxical
juxtaposition. When one defines selflidentity and draws a boundary around
it, one also defines the otherldifference beyond the boundary automatically.
Thus, one cannot talk about difference without talking about identity.
Whether we define identity as essentially bound self or as socially
constructed entity, difference remains juxtaposed to it. Thus, whether or not
we subscribe to the liberal assumption of a stable human nature, what
characterizes human beings and contemporary human societies is dynamic
multiplicity, complexity and simultaneity of identitiesldifferences.Polarizing
and prioritizing these, even by the lip-served liberal definition, restricts
human possibilities, and therefore constrains human rights. Thus, any form
of oppression and discrimination that suppress any dimension of human
identitiesldifferences violates human rights. By contrast, expressing
identitiesldifferences opens up space for exploring human possibilities and
thus promotes human rights.
While the expression of similarities is essential to create a
movement, it becomes self-defeating the moment it denies the expression of
difference. As Lorde (1984) argues, the need for unity is often mistaken for
a need for homogeneity. Oromo national liberation movements express
Oromo similarities and suppress differences for fear that expression of
differences might lead to division and fragmentation. However, division and
fragmentation are the results of suppressing identitiesldifferences, not of
expressing them. And, as Lorde contends, this fear belongs to the oppressor,
not to the oppressed. The primary tactic of the oppressor, she asserts, is to
occupy the minds of the oppressed with the fears and concerns of the
oppressor. It is to meet the divide-and-conquer need of the oppressor that
oppressed people are taught to view difference with suspicion, fear and
39