Hacker News Reader

Comment by freeafrica4 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

There are multiple major factors driving the tigray conflict. Politics, ideology, ethnonationalism, etc. Religion isn't one of them.

Ethiopia was never colonized.

Italy colonized it for 5 years.

A brief military occupation during world war 2 isn’t what people mean by the world colonized. No one would say that Germany colonized France.

Sure Italy certainly wanted to colonize Ethiopia, but they were driven out with the help of the British before they could.

There’s broad acceptance that Ethiopia is an uncolonized country.

Hmm. You are right, first thing my white colonial mind is put to is a nice cuppa, followed by manipulating the natives to war amongst themselves.

Come on.

Ethiopia has a brief Italian intervention but did not form part of a European empire. In fact, before the Communists got in under Mengistu, it was ruled by an Emperor

So why were they fighting before Islam and Christianity?

Fights were probably smaller and between tribes and not two monolithic groups? Also not quite sure about Ethiopia but the weapons were probably less bangy and more stabby pre colonization?

> were probably

Hmmmmm

That’s a reductive take. It assumes African Christians only hold their faith because of colonizers and denies us our own agency. Ethiopia, for example, adopted Christianity as a state religion in the 4th century, long before European colonization. Millions of Africans choose their faith consciously

Ethiopia was Christian before a lot of northern Europe was...

Most everyone is indoctrinated into their faith as children. "Choice" doesn't really describe cultural programming.

The lore of the church is fascinating, the story is that the line of Solomon came to Ethiopia by way of the Queen of Sheba, and the ark of the covenant made its way there. And that figures into Rastafarian beliefs.

> Ethiopia, for example, adopted Christianity as a state religion in the 4th century, long before European colonization.

That is European colonization, possibly the most effective form.

Calling 3rd century Christianity "European" stretches the definition of Europe a lot.

Is Christianity European or Levant by origin?

When the branch of christianity the Ethiopian church belonged to (Oriental orthodoxy) schismed from the western tradition, there were 5 centers of Christianity called the Pentarchy. Only one of them (Rome) was in what's now Europe, and at that point was more of a symbolic center than a seat of actual power.

Europe didn't exist as a cultural concept at that time. There was Rome, but that was a Mediterranean empire with hugely significant southern European, east Asian, and north African components. Citizens and elites came from all parts.

Eventually, we get a Europe united under Christianity, but I wouldn't call that fully developed until the end of the Viking age.

Correction: I meant west Asian.

>It assumes African Christians only hold their faith because of colonizers and denies us our own agency.

And they would be correct. Most people never "chose" their beliefs. It was systematically embedded by people who have had power over them.

Slightly nonsensical to apply modern discourse about European colonisation to events of 1,700 years ago, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum#Religion

"And they would be correct. Most people never "chose" their beliefs. It was systematically embedded by people who have had power over them." - nothing about this statement is isolated to modern discourse about European colonisation. It is sometimes true in other contexts and noted in those contexts. Although you can always argue about how systematic something is.

You choose your religion on a daily basis or we wouldn’t see anyone ever convert from one to the other.

People have agency.

Where you are born and your ethnicity largely determines your beliefs, conversion is rare. But agency over ones beliefs is becoming more prevalent as religion holds less influence as it once did (at least in some parts of the world).

Not everyone believe in religious freedom, and even those who in paper do might discriminate against those who convert

Yea, and in the face of violence agency is reduced or neutralized but that doesn’t make saying that activities of colonial powers that ended decades before most living people in the region were born gets rid of agency a defensible argument.

And that’s before unraveling whatever the OP of this comment chain meant by Muslims and Christians are only fighting because of colonizers when Islam and Christianity were colonial ideologies in the first place with there emphasis on converting all of humanity.

Not really, that's not how worldviews work. On top of that, religions and cults are very good at embedding themselves into your social/family life marrying leaving the religion with leaving or estranging a large part of social life.

At this point, it is indeed still a choice, but hardly a daily or conscious choice.

Renouncing/converting exists but is rare, life changing, and sometimes dangerous.

I’ve changed my worldview massively over the years. I don’t think it’s impossible for others to do so and I wouldn’t say they have no agency in keeping with their status quo.

That's nice but none of that is what I said.

Do you change your worldview daily, on the level of opting in or out of religions? Do you think most people do? Do you think we can expect them to?

How did you chose your religion?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com