The third article is an exploration of the history of colonial knowledge production, which eventually led to the first census in 1872. It gives an overview of how East India Company used surveys to make India intelligible. indiastatestory.in/post/colo…

The danger of powerful presidencies atop weak African states - The EastAfrican👇🏾 theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/opi…

I understand this may upset some Ethiopians, but I sincerely believe that examining how the real modern Ethiopian state was formed and developing a shared understanding of the history of the Horn of Africa can provide a foundation for building modern, integrated and cooperative states in our region. This approach could help break the cycle of endless war, poverty, and intra- and inter-state conflict. Ethiopia Today The Invented Country “Ethiopia” Ethiopia has, from its formation, been an artificial political unit rather than a naturally occurring one, as many people believe. It should be recognized as such. Its creation was the result of an alliance between European imperial powers—who were trying to manage their own rivalries at the time—and Abyssinia, which was attempting to resolve its internal crises. This alliance gave rise to the set of state institutions that constitute Ethiopia today. These institutions emerged from a European ruling class that sent representatives to northeast Africa to serve as advisers to a local nationality willing to colonize the region in partnership with them. “Ethiopia” is the name eventually applied to the geographic unit created when Abyssinia, then a cluster of small kingdoms in northeast Africa, expanded in the mid-1800s by conquering independent nations in the region using firearms supplied by European powers. Ethiopia was formed through conquest. European imperial powers—locked in an intense global rivalry for territory and dominance—were unable to resolve a stalemate over who would claim the area known as the Horn of Africa. Having already divided most of the continent among themselves, they clashed over this strategically important region near the recently opened Suez Canal and the headwaters of the Blue Nile. Their solution was to encourage, within limits, the expansionist ambitions of various Abyssinian leaders and later establish a collective agreement among themselves to recognize and assist the resulting entity as a dependent colonial empire, all while claiming that an ancient and “neutral” sovereign state already existed there. This justification became the foundation for the mythology of “Greater Ethiopia” (p.1). From the time Ethiopia itself was invented to the present day, dependence on a powerful external patron has remained a defining feature of Ethiopian colonialism (p.9). Ethiopia is thus an imperial invention, consisting of Abyssinia and the territories it colonized, held together by institutions shaped by competing global powers seeking control over the region (p.11). For example, the very notion that Ethiopia was an ancient kingdom that had merely been recognized as is by the Christian states of Europe did not originate with any Abyssinian. It was first suggested in 1891 by Crispi, an Italian official, to the Italian resident-agent in Addis Ababa as part of a plan to have Menelik send a letter outlining the extent of his boundaries (p.140). Crispi proposed that, in the letter, Menelik ought to point out that Ethiopia was an ancient kingdom which had been recognized as independent by the Christian states of Europe. Menelik thought this idea a good one and asked Salembini to draft a circular. That draft then became the basis for Menelik’s letter to the powers, which was, however, distributed without the assistance of Italy (p.141). The settlers used these narratives to control the colonies by minimizing internal contradictions and by projecting a particular image among contending Abyssinians. This is where the marriage between European image-making on Ethiopia’s behalf and the settlers who were placed in charge of the state produced very interesting descendants—what can accurately be termed the Ethiopian Colonial Mythology (p.177). The Italians had suggested that Menelik should claim Ethiopia to be an ancient empire recognized by the Europeans in order to expand the lands under his, and by extension, Italian control. This idea was put forward as a straightforward political ploy by actors seeking their best advantage. But when the idea was brought inside Ethiopia, the myth was accepted and substituted for the actual facts of history. Henceforth, the state’s version of the history of the empire came to include the idea described above, including the claim that the territories recently conquered by European-assisted Abyssinians shared 3,000 years of common history with Abyssinia itself, and that the people of the empire constituted a single “Ethiopian” nationality (p.178). Menz Becomes Shoa Sahle Selassie of Menz ruled over the Abyssinian kingdom located farther south. Merchandise that was in great demand by Europeans at that stage included ivory, gold, and coffee (p.83). By the end of Yohannes’ era, in 1889, Menelik of Shoa became emperor of Abyssinia with little resistance from the contending kings of the other Abyssinian kingdoms (p.101). After Menelik’s ascendance, the position of king of Shoa allowed him to assume power upon the death of the Tigrayan Emperor Yohannes. Menelik was left without an effective rival for the emperor’s crown. By 1889, Menelik had become the king of kings of Abyssinia (p.102). The interest of European entrepreneurs from the time of their arrival was to create an enterprise and, acting as direct agents of the growing European capitalist class, to introduce ideas and activities that would further the interests of monopoly capitalists in their respective nations. These germinating ideas—the seeds of capitalist formation—were brought into Abyssinia from the outside during this period. This marked the introduction of the germs of capitalist institutions into the region and gave birth to the very idea of Ethiopia. The entrepreneurs introduced their own priorities, aligned them with those of the Abyssinians, and provided the means to achieve both. The empire of Ethiopia never existed without the European component (p.133). Ethiopia was as much a European creation as it was Abyssinia (p.134). In actuality, it was in the name of first Abyssinia and then Ethiopia that Europeans built all the necessary dimensions of the administrative apparatus (p.135). By officially recognizing the initial infrastructures of the Abyssinian/Ethiopian state, the imperial powers of Europe were able to legitimize it as a dependent colonial state—a test case for the kind of model for control by finance capital, usually referred to as neocolonialism, that would later flourish throughout Africa (p.200).