It is unfortunate my first posting after the optimistic EDA Unity Congress deals with something not so directly linked to the great national event. Words of congratulations are indeed due to the Congress which has just successfully completed. But, we should not read too much success into it. As we should not confine ourselves to yearly congresses, work for realization of the charted plans should start right now. One of the positive sides of this Congress is the fact that it was preceded by better preparation, albeit sporadic and less organized. The level of engagement of individuals, civic-society organizations and media outlets was positive which we should build on it in future. 

Indeed, many Eritreans addressed the leaders: some pledged them, some tipped them, some tried to persuade them, some encouraged them and some of us criticized them perhaps badly. As Saleh Johar recently noted, in our conversations many of us are just ‘critical’ without the concomitant ‘thinking’ that is required for productive end. We critique but we seem less concerned to assess ramifications of our condemnation to the wellbeing of the community we seek to help. In addressing the EDA related to its Congress, some of us might have sinned for which I use this opportunity to ask for forgiveness. Accepting your mistakes is very difficult but when you are humbly advised, just like Ato Berhane Gebrengus and other modest fathers do, it is much easier to see and accept your flaws. Regrettably, not many of us master this wisdom. Lack of humility!  

Recently, I read an article posted on alenalki.com written by a fellow whom I knew in 2005 by reading what he wrote back in 2001/2/3. By then, I think he was a sensible writer that used to address points in civil and inclusive manners. Now, in addition to the instant indication one can get from the mere fact that he appears on alenalki.com, his essay shows how far he has drifted to embrace the Government of Eritrea (GoE) with all the latter’s atrocities. I have been thinking why many Eritreans with masters, PHDs and other heavy-weight credentials fail to see the negative sides of the GoE though they should be at liberty to compliment the achievements of the government. At the same time, I wonder why people within the opposition camp with the same credentials are so overtaken by hatred.  I hypothesized, tested my hypothesis and drew a conclusion.  

I also discovered a brand new land which I used as a laboratory – Demarcation Watch! Do not confuse it with Human Rights Watch! Thus, I also did some googling to trace why some fellows ended up in the new land – demarcation watch – and not human rights watch or preferably both. If you are laughing at my very very very late discovery of the ‘new land’, then you can as well rightly conclude I am very amateur when it comes to Eritrean politics. But, I will not let you laugh at me and then go free. Rather, ask yourself: ‘where do the majority of the Eritrean youths stand vis-à-vis the national politics’. I am sure this question will help you to moderate your conclusion – that I am not much naïve on the relative scale of things. 

I have not told you about my conclusion: here it comes. Our politics is increasingly moving from politics of reason and persuasion to politics of hatred and adamancy. You can test this hypothesis by touring the various media outlets we have. I am glad to see signs of reversal with the EDA Congress which I would like to focus on, next time. Are you not happy with the EDA passing such a resolution: 

Announced its readiness to study means of holding a dialogue with the Eritrean … [government] provided it shows its readiness to find a peaceful means to resolve the political crisis in Eritrea by paving the way for a democratic transformation and establishing a constitutional rule that conforms to the will of the people and their aspiration for security and stability …  

One of the causes for the increasing level of hatred in our politics, in my opinion, is lack of humility in our discourses that simply create categories of Eritreans and feed them with detestation which in return confiscates their rational thinking replacing it with adamancy. Unfortunately, the result is irreconcilable polarization. At its worst form, polarization assumes symbolic manifestation. What do you think about the YPFDJ excessively using the colored flag not only as a dress but also body encryption? Conversely, what do you think the YPFDJ think when they see the blue flag? Representation of the relics of the past; people who dwell on yesterday? If one side is evil, a blessed adversary can moderate and mitigate consequence that can ensue from any collusion between the two. We should not plant bad seeds we cannot uproot even in post PIA Eritrea – hatred! After all, we should expect the next government, whosoever it will be, will receive Eritrea in bad situation. If we are assuming the public will be content with few papers printed in our towns, without the societal fractures treated, we are wrong. We should work to eliminate hatred! 

Fessahaye Woldu’s comment 

The main aim of this article is to respond to some points of Fessahaye’s comments (Fetishizing Ghedli- My Take: A Matter Of Perspective) on my article – ‘Eritrean identity: My Amicus Curie’. I feel awkward writing on this issue few days after important national event concluded on which we should focus our attention. Fessahaye’s comments also directly cover Habtom’s and Merhawi’s as a reactions and complements to Yosief’s articles – ‘Romanticizing Gedli’. Although related, not directly covered by Mr Fessahaye’s comments are articles by Saleh, Petros, Amanuel Hdirat, Amanuel Eyassu and EMDHR. As many Eritrean cyber readers can grasp, the main theme involved is Eritrean identity. It is important to link all the relevant articles so that readers can navigate from one to another easily – something which Fessahaye, as a writer, should have done. In many respects, writing is putting together of inter-related information from different sources. Plus, 2008 will soon be 2018 as 2000 has just become 2008. Few years later, without such linkage it will be difficult to trace all these contributions. 

The following paragraphs from Fessahaye’s article are the main comments directed to my article. I have bolded the key words on which I wanted to re-comment. It is big quotation; but it is justified by copy right laws under the principle of fair comment. 

Another of these critical articles is one written by a Mr. Simon W. Haymanot. Mr. Simon did not actually write his article in asmarino. He regurgitated his swill in awate.  His article is titled “Eritrean Identity my Amicus Curie”  

To establish his credentials as a widely-read and well informed critique this one endlessly and boringly bombards his readers with his cut, copy and paste quotations of selected paragraphs from writers as diverse as Robert Kaplan and  Dorman (who ever it is) to Akinola and Noronha and from Redie to Gaim.

His article is impressive in its range of references but is also dispiriting. To convince us of his narrative he attempts to slot each of the narrators into a prefabricated historical scheme and indirectly assures us not to be discouraged by Mr. Yosief.  He concludes his crocodile tears of the article and the admiration he has for the author by assuring as that we after all are a Nation and have an identity because Michela Wrong has said so. 

Michela Wrong of all names? Wasn’t it Nyerere the great Malimu who described “experts” such as Michela Wrong as “those who come to find out and leave before they are found out”? Well, this is what you get from a person who is not convinced of his own insignificance.  

I will respond to the highlighted points in each paragraph from top to bottom.  

My article is not critical or analytical. As I stated in the first paragraph, the aim of the article ‘is to offer literature to the issue at hand so that we can enrich our horizon’ on the issues Yosief raised. Whenever one subject is on debate, we should contribute all relevant information we have so that we can enrich it. That is why I composed the article – a jumbled work of not more than 8 hours. So it is not only rushed but also poorly organized list of literature, if you can give it this credit. Analysis and drawing conclusion is left for a reader presumably after reading the listed references. 

Objectivity is also embodied in the article as I tried to reflect it starting from the title. In the world of litigation, amicus curie is a third party who joins litigation derived by a sense of contribution to the delivery of justice. By using the terms, I also tried to show objectivity from the outset. Perhaps I failed. Perhaps I am misconstrued. Or it is the hatred which is often pushing us to negative construction. 

There is nothing wrong with making reference to other writers. At this age, too much has already been written. Prudence requires that we should first consult what is available and then add our contribution. By the way, the wealth of information hosted in our websites is too important that we need to consider compiling it in a book form. My aim with the article is to ‘offer literature to the issue at hand so that we can enrich our horizon’. Fessahaye did not read this express aim but he construed something else – to establish my credentials as a widely-read and well informed critique – and accused me of self aggrandizement. Negative construction to negative end! 

Fessahaye stressed on ‘copy and paste’ with regard to my quotations. Well, if you are quoting an electronic text (thanks to technology, nowadays books and journals are electronically available) the best way is to copy and paste it. It saves you from the effort you exert and time you waste to type it. Also, it saves you from committing typographic errors. Because Fessahaye did not use this technique, he did double errors in one paragraph. He wrote my name as ‘Simon W. Haymanot’ which is not; and he quoted the title of my article as ‘“Eritrean Identity my Amicus Curie”’ which too is wrong quotation though the variation appears negligible. It should have been quoted like this: ‘Eritrean identity: My Amicus Curie’. By misquoting the title of my article, he has attributed different meaning to it. Probably, this also explains his misunderstanding of the whole article. Kindly consider the following two sentences and see how a minor variation creates big difference in meaning. 

Kill them not, spare them! Kill them, not spare them! 

The awate guys did overrule some formatting features by un-italicizing the last two words of my title as I originally submitted to them and as they should be. Rightly, they were making sure house style is followed; one point on which I admire them. But, we should not be seriously deep into writing ethics or counting linguistic and typographic errors. If we are to, I will be rated too low on the scale. I am delving on this because Fessahaye raised issue of copy and paste. 

On substance, I think Fessahaye missed the nature of the article. On this particular article, my own words are very few. I did the counting and you will be surprised - less than the first two paragraphs. I used very few words to link the different quotations which are copied and pasted. Generally, we all agree that the more a work copy and pastes from different sources, the more researched it becomes; and sometimes the more boring. 

As rushed list of literature, Fessahaye could have charged me of being selective and deliberately excluding authorities that back Yosief’s thesis. Assuming he can prove it, that would have been sound allegation. In any case, we should bear in mind that it is not simple to provide exhaustive literature review and we are not into this standard when it comes to our publications on awates, asmarinos and meskerems. In addition, one can also see that one of Dorman’s articles, for example, supports Yosief’s thesis. Consider the paragraph below which is from my article: 

In another article Dorman summarily observes that Eritrean politics is increasingly captured in competing narratives of nationalism. ‘Official’ narratives, she added, emphasize Eritrea's purported stability, orderliness, and uniqueness. This discourse defends and supports the current government's policies. In contrast, according to her, recent research challenges those policies, and contributes to a nationalist counter-narrative … ‘The penetration of state and nation-building projects into every sector of Eritrean life means that all social research is deeply politicised. Journalists and researchers have long been key players in the contested process of conceptualising Eritrean nation-hood, and this continues in the post-liberation period.’ 

‘Michela Wrong of all names?’ Mr Fessahaye ponders in a cynical fashion indicating Michela Wrong cannot be taken as an authority. But Wrong has written a book and she is prima facie more authoritative than me and him. In addition, I did not simply rely on Wrong though relying on a single source is better than a highly opinionated presentation. Apart from the Eritrean and non-Eritrean writers I mentioned, the following is what I said and which Fessahaye did not seem to read. 

Perhaps the most comprehensive and solid study on Eritrean identity is the one Peggy A. Hoyle contributed … In developing the article, Hoyle has consulted many noted Eritrean and Ethiopia writers including expatriates that have been unfortunately categorized as historical pros and cons of the two countries depending on their positions. 

Fessahaye should have traced who these writers are. I am sure he will find some of the ones he likes. On the above quoted paragraph, pay attention to the word ‘unfortunately’ which I used consciously. It is not good to categorize people into antagonistic camps based on their opinion unless for positive ends. 

On style, particularly on humbleness, Fessahaye’s comments are still within my margin of appreciation. But, honestly, I would have liked them in a more humble delivery system. You can read his comments and deduct conclusions. One point, however, deserves separate attention. He, for example, said: ‘Well, this is what you get from a person who is not convinced of his own insignificance’. In the above quoted statement, I hope he is referring to me and not to Michela Wrong. Adghi zeyblus beqli yequanatsb is what our fathers say in such situation. 

On Eritrea identity and Yosief’s presentation of it … well, Yosief is very articulate writer. To state otherwise is to harm your own credibility. As many of us do, he might have overemphasized it and focused on the negative sides only, relegating the positives of Ghedli. There are many points that I disagree with and differ from. Yet, Yosief’s articles embody bitter truth; and Yoesef is not the first to come with such depiction. Have not you heard our old mothers saying: ‘Weghe Tsebhe Ghedli ktblu ab gedel etewu!’ This was a frustrated response to the only radio station in Eritrea and it captures the essence of Yosef’s articles – politically exploitative romance of Gedli by the government in power. It was so expressive. A colleague graduate who enthusiastically joined the ministries to introduce his learning but unfortunately met with aserarHahana alena, men fleT ilka, temekro mieda … has also expressed it in few terms – ata eza meidas kemey dya neira? 

Yet, it is natural for Eritreans to present Ghedli in a romanticized fashion because its making project has penetrated into every sector of Eritrean life. As Saleh observed, perhaps it is not ‘logical’ to romanticize Ghedli but it is ‘emotional’ – something we cannot easily avoid. As I stated in my last paragraph, this issue is often emotionally charged. To me, no one has captured the essence of the matter we are discussing as Saleh did. Again, please allow me to resort to my big quotation. I cannot help the beauty of the expression. 

[A women has] just delivered a baby, an ugly baby. And you are visiting her, let’s say she is your relative. Go inside, carrying a bouquet of flowers (or carrying nothing), and say… what do you say? Could you say, ‘what an ugly baby’? Would you be lying if you admired the baby and said that its nose looks like your mother’s? Would any of you say ‘my mother’ or ‘my father’ is the ugliest person around? Why not. The ugly people we see around certainly have children. Has anyone of you ever said, “What an ugly baby”? And if you said, “what a beautiful baby”, would that be considered a lie?  

A guy identified as Samuel, the first one to react to one of Habtom’s articles, similarly noted: 

At a time a community tries to reconcile and heal wounds, the wise would for example block certain remarks, although true, that can derail the reconciliatory mood. At a time hope is needed, the wise would block discouraging remarks. At a time unity is needed, the wise would avoid touching the volatile spots. Our mediums need to play this role. 

Few weak spots that one can identify from Yosief’s articles are thus timing, the delivery system which paid less attention to emotions and certain level of exaggeration. The articles revolving around Eritrean identity have done injustices to the EDA congress by claiming space for attention and they continue to do so. Do we need to stop this stuff now? I think so. 

Reading them in context and positively, I tend to agree with Fessehaye’s and Yosief’s thesis somehow. Consider this from Fessehaye’s article:  

Why can’t a thousand Eritreans die for a ‘grand theft country’? Why can’t we Eritreans stand for our beliefs? Why can’t we die for our ideals for our principles? As I tried to explain above, the answer is simple. We don’t have any [country, beliefs, ideals and principles]!! 

And consider this scenario. You have a very weak son whom you think is feeble in all standards of greatness. You are so desperate to change him. So your good intentions are presumed; proof to the contrary remains permitted though. If you take him to counselling, the prescriptions you get are probably the most efficient – thus best delivery system. But you can also try this, though I cannot guarantee success. With a severely threatening face you can possibly show, yell at him. Yes, shout at him; may be you can also slap him. Tell him that he is not of your making; not of your genetic and someone who should not have been conceived in the first place. BKa shnti konka terifka! So you are literally challenging him. You have also shifted the burden of proof on him. Thus, if he is otherwise, it is up to him to demonstrate it; and you can remain your hands folded.  

By the same token, if you want to promote democracy in Eritrea, you can try telling Eritreans that they are unworthy of having a state of their own and democratic governance. Hell will ensue and your escape button is: ‘ok, prove me wrong’. 

This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it