Background
As I watched a video clip of a recent parliamentary session from distance—courtesy of YouTube—I was caught off guard by a moment that, while unexpected in such a formal setting, was hardly surprising given Ethiopia’s deep-rooted ethnic tensions. During the Q&A session, Dr. Desalegn Chanie, an Amhara politician, deliberately referred to Adama by its imperial-era name, Nazareth—a term imposed during Haile Selassie’s rule as part of a broader campaign to suppress and erase Oromo identity.
Hearing this in 2025, decades after Oromia officially restored its native Oromo place names, was jarring. But what made it even more striking was that this wasn’t an accidental slip—it was a calculated move. And he did so while addressing Shimelis Abdissa, the President of Oromia, someone who embodies the very resurgence of Oromo identity that historical revisionists continue to resist.
Shimelis, in a measured response, pointedly asked, “If you’re not referring to a place in Israel, and you mean Adama…” effectively calling out the provocation for what it was. This exchange was more than a simple word choice—it was a reflection of a deeper struggle over identity, power, and the painful legacy of forced assimilation.
Why would a lawmaker, in a position to foster unity and mutual respect, choose to invoke a name associated with historical oppression? What drives figures like Dr. Chanie to resist acknowledging historical wrongs and instead revive symbols of past subjugation?
To answer these questions, let’s analyze the sociological, psychological, and political motives behind such provocations—and why denial and historical revisionism are not just futile but dangerous for Ethiopia’s inter-ethnic cohesion.
Sociological Analysis
-
Group Identity & Power Structures
- Ethnic identity is closely tied to power dynamics. The Amhara ruling class historically held power and imposed cultural assimilation on the Oromo people. Many elites from this group may still perceive the restoration of Oromo identity as a challenge to their historical dominance.
- Using the imperial-era names is a way of reasserting control over narratives of history and identity. It signals resistance to the changes brought about by Oromo nationalism.
-
Symbolic Domination
- Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence explains how dominant groups impose their culture and values on marginalized groups without using physical force. By calling Adama “Nazareth,” Dr. Chanie is engaging in an act of symbolic violence—reinforcing a colonial-era terminology that was meant to erase Oromo identity.
- The refusal to accept the restored names reflects an ongoing attempt to maintain cultural and ideological supremacy, even when political power has shifted.
-
Ethnic Hegemony vs. Decolonization
- Many post-colonial societies experience struggles over naming and identity. Ethiopia, despite never being colonized by a foreign power, experienced internal colonialism, where the Abyssinian empire expanded and dominated other ethnic groups. The Oromo people argue that this was no different from external colonialism, as Biyya Oromo—their traditional homeland before ‘Oromia’ became the official designation—was forcibly annexed and ruled by Abyssinia.
- The Oromo people’s struggle for identity restoration is similar to African and Indigenous peoples reclaiming names and languages erased by colonial forces. Resisting these changes is a way for the old elites to maintain their hegemony.
Psychological Analysis
-
Cognitive Dissonance & Denial of Historical Wrongs
- Admitting that the imperial system erased Oromo identity would mean acknowledging past injustices, which some Amhara elites find difficult. People tend to avoid cognitive dissonance by justifying past actions rather than admitting wrongdoing.
- Dr. Chanie’s choice of words suggests that he may be in denial about the legitimacy of Oromo identity reclamation. Using the old name may be his way of rejecting historical guilt.
-
In-Group Bias & Ethnocentrism
- People naturally show bias toward their own ethnic or cultural group. Dr. Chanie, as an Amhara elite, may feel that the Oromo renaissance threatens his in-group’s long-standing identity as the core of Ethiopian statehood.
- Ethnocentrism leads some to see their own historical narratives as the only valid ones. This is why some Amhara politicians continue to use names imposed during the imperial era, dismissing Oromo identity as secondary or even fabricated.
-
Provocation as a Political Tool
- Deliberate provocation is a strategy used to elicit emotional reactions and reinforce divisions. By calling Adama “Nazareth,” Dr. Chanie may have been testing Oromo politicians’ responses, trying to frame them as overly sensitive or radical.
- This tactic allows him to mobilize his own supporters who share his nostalgia for the imperial past and to present himself as a defender of “Ethiopian unity” against what they see as “ethnic fragmentation.”
Political Analysis
-
Political Revisionism & Imperial Nostalgia
- Ethiopia’s power structure has changed since 1991, with Oromo and other non-Amhara groups gaining more political autonomy. However, some Amhara elites still push for a return to a centralized state under Amhara cultural and linguistic dominance.
- The use of old imperial names is a form of revisionist politics, attempting to normalize the language of the past and subtly resist Oromo nationalism.
-
Challenging Oromo Political Gains
- The restoration of Oromo identity is part of a broader struggle for self-determination. Amhara elites who oppose this movement view the changing narrative as a loss of power.
- Using the old names may be a political statement against what the opponents perceive as “ethnic federalism” that has allowed the Oromo to assert their identity. Note that, in contrast, the proponents prefer the term multinational federalism.
-
Electoral Strategy & Populism
- Some Amhara politicians deliberately provoke Oromo leaders to rally support among their own base. By using “Nazareth” instead of Adama, Dr. Chanie was likely signaling to his supporters that he stands for the old Ethiopia, where Amhara culture was dominant.
- This is a classic populist strategy—creating an “us vs. them” dynamic to consolidate political backing.
The Danger of Denial and Provocation
Dr. Chanie’s use of the name Nazareth is not a mistake; it is a deliberate act of resistance, denial, and provocation. His choice of words reflects deeper ideological and political tensions in Ethiopia:
- Sociologically, it is a refusal to accept the shift in power and cultural recognition.
- Psychologically, it reflects cognitive dissonance and an unwillingness to acknowledge historical wrongs.
- Politically, it is a strategy to delegitimize Oromo identity while reinforcing Amhara nationalist narratives.
His goal may be to antagonize, disrespect, and belittle Oromo identity while mobilizing his own ethnic base. This is why such behavior threatens community cohesion and perpetuates historical wounds. It is an ongoing battle between two competing visions of Ethiopia: one that embraces its multi-ethnic reality and another that clings to an outdated Amhara-dominated past.
At a time when Ethiopia desperately needs reconciliation and forward-looking leadership, clinging to symbols of past oppression is not just futile—it is dangerous. If history has shown anything, it is that denial and provocation never build unity; they only deepen divides. True cohesion can only come when all groups acknowledge past injustices and work toward a future based on mutual respect.
The moral of this story highlights a crucial truth: inter-ethnic dissonance and conflict do not originate from the masses. It is never simply Amhara versus Oromo, or Oromo versus Somali people. Rather, it begins with elites like Dr. Chanie—politicians, activists, and opinion leaders—who, whether deliberately or unconsciously, inject provocative rhetoric into the inter-ethnic discourse. Their chauvinistic or populist tendencies, often driven by political expediency, set the stage for division. This pattern is not new. Even in the feudal era, power was concentrated in the hands of a select few who shaped the dominant narratives—just as modern politicians and activists do today.
The Asymmetry of Offense and Awareness in Ethnic Conflict
What begins as elite-driven dissonance accumulates over time, transforming into a collective sense of grievance among marginalized groups. The perpetrators—who often dismiss or remain oblivious to the impact of their actions—may not register the weight of these provocations, while the victimized communities internalize them as part of a long and painful historical memory. This dynamic can be understood as a systemic, accumulative, and asymmetrical process of offense and perception in intergroup relations. At the heart of this lies a profound perception gap: the offending elites often deny or minimize their role in perpetuating grievances, while the affected groups carry the full burden of accumulated offenses.
This leads us to a deeper theoretical framework—The Accumulated Grievance Theory (AGT)—which explains how persistent provocations and historical injustices, whether intentional or unconscious, generate an escalating undercurrent of resentment. Over time, this latent tension becomes a catalyst for inter-ethnic strife, and in extreme cases, violent conflict.
Put differently, history does not fracture societies overnight—it is the slow, relentless accumulation of grievances, dismissed by the offenders yet deeply felt by the marginalized, that creates the fault lines of conflict. This is the essence of The Accumulated Grievance Theory (AGT): a framework that reveals how persistent provocations and historical injustices, whether intentional or unconscious, generate an escalating undercurrent of resentment. Over time, this latent tension does not merely simmer—it erupts, fueling inter-ethnic strife and, in extreme cases, violent conflict.
Come to think of it, this is how fractured ethnic groups emerge. This is how we got here, and unless we confront it, this is how it will happen again and again.
We will explore AGT in depth in as a follow-up article examining how systemic patterns of elite-driven offenses shape collective memory, fuel ethnic grievances, and ultimately threaten social cohesion. Because history is not just written in books—it is etched into the consciousness of those who have endured its injustices. And when grievances are left to accumulate, denied, or dismissed, they do not fade away; they fester, they deepen, and eventually, they explode. This is not just a theory—it is the unspoken pattern behind every fractured society, every ethnic conflict, and every war rooted in long-buried wounds.
Come to think of it, this is how fractured ethnic groups emerge. This is how we got here, and unless we confront it, this is how it will happen again and again.
The Nazareth versus Adama incident is more than a fleeting political provocation—it is a microcosm of Ethiopia’s deeper historical tensions. What seemed like a simple choice of words has, in fact, unveiled the profound struggle over identity, power, and historical memory. In dissecting this moment, we have uncovered patterns that extend far beyond Ethiopia, revealing how elite-driven rhetoric fuels inter-ethnic dissonance, how historical grievances accumulate over time, and how unresolved injustices lay the groundwork for future conflicts. This exploration has not only deepened our understanding of these dynamics but has also led us to something greater—a framework that explains the invisible yet potent forces shaping our world. The AGT is not just an intellectual exercise; it is a lens through which we can diagnose the fractures of history and, perhaps, find ways to heal them.
Conclusions
Why Denial and Provocation Are Dangerous
Dr. Chanie’s reference to Nazareth instead of Adama is not a simple case of linguistic preference. It is one of thousands of micro-aggressions that, when viewed collectively by the victimized group, create an environment ripe for inter-ethnic conflict.
The Accumulated Grievance Theory (AGT) explains why such provocations are far more dangerous than they appear. While perpetrators may forget or dismiss their offenses as minor, victims store them in collective memory, leading to deep-seated resentment. When grievances reach a critical mass, they explode into conflict—not because of a single offense, but because of the accumulated weight of many.
The lesson? Denial and provocation don’t erase history—they fuel the very divisions that lead to war. True inter-ethnic cohesion can only come from acknowledging past wrongs and ensuring they are not repeated.
Very Final Thoughts
We wish to end this article with constructive and positive thoughts that the AGT framework, slated for another publication for a deeper analysis, suggests. If AGT explains why conflicts arise, how can they be prevented? The key is to acknowledge and address grievances before they reach a breaking point:
- Recognition of historical injustices: The offending elite groups must acknowledge wrongs (e.g., renaming places back, teaching accurate history).
- Active avoidance of provocation: Politicians like Dr. Chanie must be called out when they engage in identity denial or provocation.
- Legal and social redress mechanisms: Establishing institutions that genuinely listen to and address accumulated grievances. Has the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission thought of any policy implications in term of addressing grievances with redress mechanisms? One wonders!
- Narrative correction: Media and academia must challenge revisionist history and replace it with narratives that respect all ethnic identities.
Only by addressing these historical grievances through meaningful action can societies hope to break the cycle of accumulated grievances and foster true reconciliation and coexistence.
