Searching for a Way out of Social Discrimination: A Case Study of
the Manjo through the 2002 Incident in Kafa

SAYURI Y OSHIDA

Nagoya University

Under the present Ethiopian government, social discrimination is a human rights issue. De­
spite the national policy of the right to self-determination launched by the Ethiopian People's
Revolutionary Democratic Front, the Manjo, a socially discriminated minority who live in thewestern Kafa and eastern Sheka zones, feel that they are being deprived of this right. In 2002,
the Manjo attacked the Kafa in an attempt to put an end to tllis discrimination. Knowledge ofthe circumstances surrounding the Manjo uprising is essential for understanding the conflict.
1his article describes these circumstances and the changes brought about by the incident.

Keywords: Kaf a, Manjo, social discrimination, minorities, conflicts

1. INTRODUCTION

In this article, I investigate the social background of an armed attack against the Kafa by the Manjo.

In March 2002, Manjo living in Bita wiiriida in the Kafa zone and Yeki wii1·iida in the Sheka zoneof the Southern Nations Nationalities People's Region (SNNPR) mounted an attack on their Kafaneighbors. Many Kafa were killed and their houses burned to the grouncL The attack was violent,
especially in Woshero k'ebele and Shota k'ebele ofBita wiiriida.
The Manjo are a minority group who live in pockets in the Kafa, Sheka,Benchi Maji, and Dawro
zones and the Konta special wiiriida in SNNPR. They also occupy the Oromia and Garnbella Re­
gional States. Manjo living in the Kafa zone have long been discriminated against by the Kafa.
During the Derg regime, attempts were made by the government to abolish social discrimination
against the Manjo, although these met with little success. Since the Ethiopian People's Revolution­
ary Democratic Front (EPRDF) came to power and ethnic federalism became the central policy of
the federal government, the Manjo have become even more marginalized, as minorities are not con­sidered independent ethnic groups entitled to receive economic and political resources.

The government and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) regarded the 2002 Manjo attack

to be an eruption of long-held f rustration caused by Kafa discrimination and subsequently initi­
ated campaigns to abolish discrimination. A lthough discrimination was one cause of the incident,aclose examination of the economic and political conditions of the area reveals the social back­ground to be just as important. The Manjo in Kafa were wealthier than those living in other areas
and were more sensitive to economic and political deprivation caused by governmental policies.
Furthermore, the attack was nearTepi, the capital ofYeki wiiriida. On the same day that the incident
took place, Majangir and Sheko residents had risen in revolt and clashed with local officials in Tepi

(The Ethiopian Human Rights Council2002; Human Rights Watch 2003).<1l They were protesting

Nilo-Ethiopian Studies 12: 47-60 (2008)
Copyright© 2008.Japan Association for Nilo-Ethiopiao Studies
47

48

Nilo-Ethiopian Studies

against the local administration for their right to self-determination, which had been granted by thefederal government in 1995 but denied in the Sheka zone (Sato 2005; Vaughan 2003, 2006). Manjoin this area were influenced by the po1ticaJ activities of the Majangir and Sheko and became con­scious of their own political rights.
Here, I examine what induced the Manjo to attack. Having spoken with informants, both Manjo
and Kafa who had fusthand information, I attempt to identify the direct and indirect causes of the at­tack as perceived by both parties. I also examine the effects of the attack on the relationship between
the Kafa and the Manjo. CJl

First I describe the social and economic background of the Manjo. Next I describe the social
relationship between the Manjo and the Kafa and provide examples of Kafa discrimination against the
Manjo. 1hen 1 explain the recent Manjo attempts to become organized under the self-determination
policy of the EPRDF regime and show how government responses frustrated them. Fmally, I describe
the 2002 incident and discuss its causes and effects. (Jl

2. THE MANJO AND KAFA SOCIETIES

2.1. The Manjo in Kafo
The population of the Kafa zone is estimated to be 858,600, of whom the majority are Kafa. Na'o,
Ch'ara, and Me'en live in the southern part of the Kafa zone; Oromo live on the border of the north­ern part; and Gimira, Sheka, and Majangir live on the border of the southwestern part. The Amhara
people, who migrated from the north, also live in the Kafa zone (Fig. 1).'4l
In general, people who speak the Omotic Kafa language (Kqfi-noono) are called Kao
f . However,within Kafa society, people differentiate themselves as either Gomoro,<5l Manno, or Manjo. The
majority call themselves Gomoro (hereafter referred to as Kaof ). 1he Marmo are tanners and are also
discriminated against by the Kafa,<6l but the Manjo, estimated to be about 10,000 to 12,000 in popu­
lation,C7l are the most rnarginalized.
TI1e history and society of the Kafa have been studied intensively. Bieber (1920) conducted e>..'i:en­sive research on their culture at the beginning of the 20th century, and Huntingford (1955) laid out acomprehensive structure of the society that formed the framework of the traditional Kafa Kingdom.

OROMIYA
Kafa

RegionSita

Wilrllda•

Administralion

Fig. 1. Location of the Kafa zone

Zone

YOSHIDA: Searching for a Way out of Social Discrimination

49

Orent (1969, 1970a,b) researched the kinship system in the 1960s, and Lange (1982) wrote a detailed
history based on field research and written material.
According to research conducted before the Derg era, Kafa society had a social hierarchy similar
to the caste system. At the top of this hierarchy were the Kafa, followed by occupational groups in­cluding blacksmiths (K'emmo), weavers (Shammano), potters,<8l bards (Shatto), and tanners (Manno).
In this hierarchy, theManjo were commonly referred to as hunters and given the lowest status, equal
onJy to slaves. <9l 1he Kafa exclude theManjo from their own category of asho (people), treating themas gonde ashi yaro (people of bad clans).(IO)
I-:Iistorically, theManjo had a kingdom of their own ruled by a "great king," Manjo tato, but they
were driven into the forest, where they were conquered by the Kafa (Beckingham & Huntingford
1954: vii). Incorporated into the Kafa kingdom, the Manji-tato became subservient to the Kafa king,Kaji-tato. In the worafo (administrative area) where theManjo lived, Manji-rasha was responsible forcollecting taxes through Manji-guudo.Ul) TheManjo were appointed guardians of the borders of the
kingdom and regional fiefs and also served as scouts, castrators of war prisoners, and state execution­ers (Lange 1982: 266-267).
Although almost every article and book listed above includes a paragraph or two on theManjo, noresearch has focused specifically on this group. Recently, Gezahegn (2003) published a groundbreak­ing article on the current situation of this group based on fieldwork conducted amongManjo living
near Bonga. Gezahegn's main focus was social and economic changes undergone by theManjo since
the Derg regime. Whereas previous researchers have treated theManjo as hunters, Gezahegn dem­
onstrated that this group is changing its way of life from hunting and gathering to farming. However,Gezahegn's perspective was limited by the fact tl1at his research was conducted only in two villages.
Gezahegn (2003: 91) mentioned that theManjo receive little income from agriculture and described
them as "poor fanners." However, this image is far f rom the reality ofManjo living in Bita wiiriida
and Gesha wiiriida where I did my researcl1. The people in these areas earn their income mostly fromagriculture, cultivating various crops and plowing more land than Kafa farmers. Manjo living in Bita
wi:iriida are well known for their economic success with coffee cultivation. They live in houses withcorrugated iron roofs equipped with tables, beds, and chairs that show off their high living standards
in this rural area.

2.2. 1he changing Manjo lifestyle
Before the Derg era, theManjo had no right to own land and moved around to hunt and gather food(Gezahegn 2003: 90). According to an informant, their population was smaller than it is today, anddense forests were plentiful until the 1980s. Prey for hunting was also abundant, and theManjo used
to eat meat almost every day. They started working their land at daybreak, and when the sun was at
its zenith, they would go out to hunt, walking tens of kilometers every day. They returned home withwild animals at sunset. (l2) Today,Manjo recall those days with nostalgia and pride. ElderManjo who
are known for their hunting and fishing skills are respected and called aaddoo (hunter).
The most commonly hunted animals were wild boar (gudino), bushbuck. (dollo), porcupine (caayo),colobus (ello), buffalo (gaho), and elephant (dangiyo). These animals were caught mainly for food, butother animals were captured for different reasons. For example, civet cats (wongo) were captured alivein traps and sold to KafaMuslims (Huntingford 1955: 106; Ishihara 2003). Some animals, such as
porcupines, were (and still are) considered panaceas. For example, porcupine meat is used as medicine
for treating colds and skin disease. TheManjo captured porcupines at the request of the Kafa. The
hides and fur of some animals, especially leopards (maho) and lions (dahero), were used as material for
clothes and hats. Elephant tusks were sold and provided theManjo with a significant income.
Today the living environment of theManjo has changed drastically, and hunting is becoming in­creasingly rare due to severe restrictions (Gezahegn 2003: 90). Although they still hunt small animals
using dogs, guns, and trapping nets, theManjo must travel a long distance to find areas with abundant
populations to hunt big game. Now theManjo buy meat at the market.
Manjo women used to make earthenware at home while the men went out to hunt. WomenNilo-Ethiopian Studies

50

made plates, pans, pots, and water jugs and sold them at local markets. Now many Manjo women
have stopped producing earthenware for cash income, making it only for their own use at home;
some young women do not even know how to make earthenware. One of the reasons for this is that
kitchen utensils made from aluminum and plastic are coming into wide use, and the demand forearthenware is decreasing. Another reason is that the Manjo believe their practice of making earth­enware was one of the reasons theKafa discriminated against them.
Today mostManjo are farmers. In fact, the lifestyle ofMa�jo living in the westernKafa zone is notdifferent from that ofKafa farmers who cultivate staples such as maize, sorghum, wheat, barley, t'ef,

ensete, and beans. Manjo backyard gardens contain staple vegetables (e.g., onion, garlic, ginger, cab­bage, sweet potato, sugar cane) and fn1its (e.g., banana, mango, papaya) that are sold for cash income.
Some Manjo grow coffee and earn more cash income than theKafa.
Apiculture is another source of cash income for theManjo and mostly takes place in Gesha wiiriida
and Saylem wiiriida in the northern part ofKafa. Because theKafa are generally not as skilled andknowledgeable apiculturists as theManjo, they buy their honey f rom theManjo. Although theKafa

make t'ajj (mead; eeyo in Ktifi-noono) and barz (a nonalcoholic drink made with honey and water;

barzo in Ka.f-noono) from honey purchased f rom the Ma�jo, they never sell these drinks to the
Manjo. The Manjo object to this and claim they have the right to buy and drink t'ajj and barz. Thissituation is changing, as aspects of discrimination are also changing.
Today the Manjo have stopped hunting and eating wild animals, which are practices considered
to be reasons for the discrimination. The Ma�o have just as many livestock (e.g., cows, bulls, goats,
sheep, fowl, horses) as theKafa and eat their meat and dairy products. Since the Manjo have gained
the means to earn money and have begun wearing clothes and shoes sold in boutiques, tl1ey havebecome indistinguishable from the Kafa in terms of their appearance. In this respect, the Manjo,
who are no longer hunters and "poor farmers" (Gezahegn 2003: 91), have achieved almost tl1e same
economic standard as theKafa, despite being discriminated against socially.

3. DISCRIMINATION AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
3.1. lv!anjo stereotypes

The social hierarchy of the Kafa kingdom was completely eliminated under the Derg regime, but
the Manjo are still referred to as gonde ashi yaro (people of bad clans) by theKafa. Most of theKafa
distinguish themselves f rom the Manjo by pointing out certain features and characteristics that the
Manjo people supposedly have. Stereotypes of theManjo include the followirlg:

a. Eating habits: The Manjo eat "unclean" and "filthy" food. This includes the meat of religiously
prohibited animals such as the savanna monkey, baboon, colobus, wild boar, and dead animals.

b. Physical appearance: The Manjo are short in height, with very curly hair. Their noses are low and
wide. 1heManjo do not care about hygiene, do not wash their bodies or clothes, and smell unpleasant(in some cases because of skin disease).

c. Characteristics: TheManjo are wicked and are liars, they are not interested in education, and they
are ignorant and lazy. They are extravagant and thieving and lack a sense of morality.
These Ma.njo stereotypes are shared not only among the Kafa but also among the Amhara, likely
because intermarriage between theKafa and the Amhara is very common. Moreover, similar idioms
and logic referrirlg to eating habits, physical appearance, and characteristics are used among Ethio­
pians in general to describe certain groups held in contempt. The Manjo are well aware of thesestereotypes. A Manjo informant told me that someKafa people say "The Manjo have nails divided
into two. Men have tails at the back of their heads, and women have tails on their foreheads."03l In
return, the Manjo regard theKafa as liars, ready to deceive tl1em. The Manjo also consider theKafa
to be cowardly and extremely suspicious, whereas they themselves are brave and honest.

YOSHIDA: Searching for a Way out of Social Discrimination

51

Despite this abuse, even after staying in the houses of both Kafa and Manjo I found it difficult to
pinpoint the differences in their lifestyles. Because most Manjo have stopped eating the meat of wild
animals, their daily meals are almost the same as those of the Kafa. The Manjo wash their bodies andclothes in the river once or twice a week as the Kafa do. Thus, it seems that Manjo stereotypes lacka substantial basis in reality, and that the Kafa use such idioms only to justify their discrimination
against the Manjo.

3.2. Discrimination against the Manjo'll1e Manjo are discriminated against in everyday life. Social discrimination is especially noticeablein greetings, at mealtimes, in communal labor, in the choice of spouses, and in the location of burial
grounds (e.g., Lange 1982; Gezahegn 2003). Similar situations of social discrimination have beenreported by the Fuga, the Wayto, and the Waata, as well as various occupational groups scattered allover Ethiopia (e.g., Pankhurst 1999; Gamst 1978; Freeman & Pankhurst 2003a).
Before the Derg period, Kafa discrimination against the Manjo was far more brazen. According
to both M�jo and Kafa informants who lived at that time, it was not uncommon for Manjo to bebeaten by Kafa. If a Manjo happened to be wearing the same clothes or shoes as a Kafa, he or she
was beaten and forced to take them off. 1Vloreover, if a Manjo encountered a Kafa on the road side,
the Manjo had to humiliate himself, stepping aside, bowing, and greeting tbe Kafa w:itb the phrase

showocchi qebona (literally, let me prostrate myself on the ground).
Even today, some Kafa refuse to allow a Manjo to enter their house, requesting that the Manjo sit
on an ensete leaf or a beehive box placed outside. Even if, by chance, a Manjo is permitted to enter thehouse of a Kafa, his or her seat will be near the entrance. Likewise, Kafa never enter Manjo houses
but only stand in the doorways.
Complaining to me about tlus kind of behavior, a Manjo said, "Why can't a Manjo enter tl1e houseof a Kafa, when a dog is allowed to do so?"04l It is also quite common for Manjo to be prohibited toenter local restaurants. However, outright refusal to admit entrance to a Manjo is rare. The owner ofthe restaurant (most likely a Kafa) merely tells the Manjo that all the food is sold out, which implies
that he or she is an uninvited guest. In some cases where Manjo are permitted to enter and have adrink, owners reserve bottles and glasses for use only by Manjo.
1lJe Kafa avoid eating with the Manjo or using the sanJe tableware, because cooking utensils usedby the Manjo are considered "unclean." The contradictory attitude of the Kafa toward honey and t'ajj
illustrates tllls furtl1er: Kafa eat honey that Manjo gather but consider drinking t'ajj made by Manjo
to be abhorrent.
Recently, some Manjo have attempted to resist tllls discrimination. 'll1ese mostly young and edu­
cated men have tried and sometimes succeeded in persuading the Kafa to treat the Manjo in a morehumanitarian way.<ts)

However, such amicable relationships are usually limited to individuals andnever extend to the Manjo as a whole. Because the Manjo are a minority, such individual attempts
against discrimination are intentionally ignored by the Kafa.
The Manjo social position and way of life have changed drastically since tl1e Derg era. Changes
in the Manjo subsistence economy and ilieir conversion to evangelical Christianity have had signifi­
cant influences on their economic and social status vis-a-vis the Kafa. However, the Manjo are still
discriminated against in various ways and, especially among the educated, feel iliat they are being
deprived of their right to political, economic, and social equality.

4. FORMATION OF THE MANJO ELITE AND THE CLAIM FOR

SELF-DETERMINATION
4.1. Affirmative action and the right to se!f-determination'll1e 1994 constitution divided Ethiopia into nine regional states based on "Nations, Nationalities
and Peoples," defined in Article 39 as a group of people (a) who have or share a large measure of a

Nilo-Ethiopian Studies

52

common culture or similar customs, a mutually intelligible language, a belief in a common or related
identity, and a common psychological make-up; and (b) who inhabit an identifiable, predominantly
contiguous territory, (The Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic ofEthiopia 1995).
Regarding the boundaries of regional states, Article 46 states that they "shall be delimited on thebasis of the settlement patterns, language, identity and consent of the people concerned," and Article
47 guarantees every nation, nationality, and people within the States the right to establish, at any
time, their own regional state on the condition that they follow the required procedures. The right tochange the boundary of a regional state is guaranteed in Article 48.
Based on this stipulation, measures for a.ffu·mative action are taken for minority groups. Their rightto participate in political activities is also guaranteed in the constitution. Article 54 states that minor­
ity groups are admitted special representation in the Congress of the Representative of the People oftl1e Federal Government.
Recently, minority groups have been given priority in education and employment by the govern­
ment at the zonal and regional levels. As a result, some minority individuals have finished their edu­
cation and obtained jobs in ilie local administration. This affirmative action corrects tl1e imbalanceamong ethnic groups in the local administration. The l\llanjo are treated as a minority and as suchenjoy various measures of affirmative action.

4.2. Claming the right to selj-dete1mination
Mter the initial boundaries were laid out, some nations, nationalities, and peoples insisted on hav­
ing an administrative district of their own in the SNNPR where minority groups were concentrated(Miyawaki & Ishihara 2005: 31). 1b.is was also true of the Kafa zone. Initially the area was divided
into four zones: Kafa, Sheka, Benchi, and Maji. In 1996/1997, these four zones were reorganized into
the Kaficho Shekacl1o zone and the Benchi Maji zone. However, tl1e Shekacho insisted that ilieir
language was different from iliat of the Kafa, so in 2000 the Kaficho Shekacho zone was subdivided
into the Kafa zone and the Sheka zone (Vaugha.n 2003: 270).
Similarly, the Majangir, an ethnic group living mainly in the Gambella Regional State and ilie
Oromia Regional State and SNNPR, revolted in Tepi (Yeki wi:inida, SNNPR) in April and May
1993. According to Sato, the Majangir,who claim to be indigenous to Tepi, were dissatisfied witl1 the
distribution of administrative posts and the demarcation of the border, which excluded Tepi from theGa.mbella Regional State. After the conflict, a peace conference and a series of negotiations were heldamong representatives of tl1e Majangir and Shekacho and officials of the Garnbella Regional State.
Although the Majangir request to include Tepi in the Gambella Regional State was rejected, Godare

wi:i1"iida in the Gambella Regional State, where some of the Majangir lived, was given the status of
special wi:iriida (Sato 2000: 14,2005: 283-284).
The Majangir case encouraged Manjo, whose population in this area was exceptionally high, inYeki wiiri:ida. Although most Manjo are uneducated and indifferent to political matters, some are
educated and well informed about how to petition the government. In 1997, two educated Manjo,
who were residents ofBach'i k'ebele in Yeki wi:iriida, petitioned the local government requesting Manjo
rights equal to those of any other nation, nationality, or peoples. The petition pointed out that al­though the government recognized equal rights for all, the Manjo were discriminated against by the
Kafa and deprived of the opportunity for employment as administrative officials, teachers, and police
officers. The petition also claimed that the government turned a deaf ear to the Manjo. The petition
was supported by Manjo living in Bita wi:iriida and Yeki wiiri:ida, and funds were raised for the two

wiiriidas to take action at the zonal level, followed by the regional and federal levels. Fundraising
was initiated by Manjo residents ofWoshero k'ebele, Shora k'ebele, and Y ina k'ebele in Bita wiiriida andBach'i k'ebele in Yeki wi:iri:ida.
The two Ma.njo visited all wi:iri:idas in Kaficho Shekacho zone (present-day Kafa and Sheka zones)
to investigate the customs and habits of the Manjo and collect oral histories.06l They also made acensus of the Manjo population and clans.(t7J The data were compiled in a 29-page report handwrit­ten in Amharic that concluded that ilie Manjo were an ethnic group with its own culture, customs

YOSHIDA: Searching for a Way out of Social Discrimination53

and habits, and language distinct from Kqfi-noono and Sheki-noono (the language of the Sheka). The
report was attached to the petition as evidence that the Manjo were an independent ethnic group.
The petition also included the request for recognition as a people, the establishment of a special

wiiriida and the formation of a political party of their own. They insisted that they were the indig­
enous people of the Kafa area and that their clans and cultures were distinct from those of the Kafa.
To support this claim academically, they quoted passages from Bieber and Cecchi.Cl8l
However, the local, regional, and federal governments dismissed their request on the grounds that
the Manjo speak Kqfi-noono, that the Manjo population is too small, and that the group does notinclude many educated individuals.
In response to this dismissal,Manjo in Woshero kebele refused to pay the annual tax in 2000/2001.<19)
W hen a policeman came to negotiate payment of the tax, the Manjo repelled him with spears andhatchets. Following this incident, the Head Administrators of the Kafa zone and ofBita wiiriida
came to Woshero k'ebefe and met with the residents in March 2001. However, by tossi11g cash out of
their pockets to show that the matter was not one of money, the Manjo demonstrated their protest of
the dismissal of their request by the government. The meeting failed to resolve anything, and a Kafa
informant who had participated in the meeting complained to me that it had been in vain.

5. THE 2002 INCIDENT, AND ITS BACKGROUND AND AFTERMATH
5.1. Social and economic background if Woshe1·o and Shota

The 2002 incident occurred in Woshero kebele and Shota k'ebele in westernBita wardda. 'll1ese kebefes
are located about 110 km west ofBonga and 10 km east ofTepi. Tepi is a commercial center, andpeople living in Woshero k'ebele and Shota k'ebefe often go there to buy goods and foods not available
at weekly markets (Fig. 2).
Woshero k'ebefe consists of 894 households and had a population of 4,204 in 2005. Shota kebefe
has 459 households and a population of 2,159. One of the most remarkable characteristics of thesetwo k'ebeles is their proportionately high Manjo populations.<20l Also, both are known for their cof­
fee production.

Residents, including Manjo, are farmers and cultivate coffee as a cash crop. The

estimated annual production of coffee beans is 500 to 2,000 kg peJ household, which amounts to as
much as 2,500 to 10,000 bin (1birr=

0.1US dollar). Economically, this translates into a high stan­

dard of living.

Fig. 2. Area of the attack and the location of k'ebeles. Map made by author based on map prepared by Zonal
Finance and Economic Development Desk and Sustainable Poverty Alleviation in Kafa Zone in 2003

54

Nilo-Ethiopian Studies

5.2. The incident
On the morning ofMonday, 11March 2002, shooting broke out in Bach'i k'ebele. The road between
Oda k'ebele and Bach'i k'ebele was blockaded byManjo living around Bach'i k'ebe/e. Cars and buses
from Tepi and Bonga were not able to pass and instead had to take the detour road through Nliza.n
Teferi.
Word of the incident spread to Woshero k'ebele and Shota k'ebele. On 12March,Manjo residents
there began to attack their Kafa neighbors. A policeman who took part in the suppression of the
disturbance told me thatManjo formed several groups of 20 to 30 persons, one holding a gun andthe others armed with spears and hatchets. Each group had its own particular role: one opened fire,
another one plundered, and other groups killed persons.(lllA Kafa informant told me thatManjo began to attack at around 8 a.m. at Shota k'ebele.<22l Kafa
residents were confined in the three evangelical chw-ches in Shota k'ebele for 3 days until a policeman
came and liberated them. Many Kafa houses were burned to the ground byManjo raiders, and some
Kafa were killed with hatchets for their bullets. The head administrator of Shota k'ebele was shot.
Another group broke into the house of the family of a former geppe-tato or baflabat (landlord) in
Shota, who belonged to the Shota clan. One family member managed to escape with his two wives
and children, but the others were killed with hatchets. Manjo raiders tied men to trees, raped theirwives in front of them, and then cut out the men's tongues. The corpses were left to rot.
The situation in Woshero k'ebele was somewhat different. According to a Kafa informant,Manjo
raiders initially planned to rob their Kafa neighbors of guns. However, when a group ofManjo ap­
proached the target house, one of the members of the Kafa family noticed it. Running into his house,he picked up a gun and shot theManjo leader. Seeing the leader die, the raiders began to retreat. Thisskirmish was enough to dampen their excitement.
In Woshero k'ebele, many of the Kafa residents fled, and others shut themselves in their houses. A
Kafa informant told me how difficult it was to take refuge:
As soon as I heard the shooting, I fled to my relative's house in Gesha wiiTiida with my wife,
children, and cows. TheManjo were everywhere, and we had to find a way out where there were
no Manjo. We walked through the forest for two days. On our way we passed two pregnant
women giving birth. One baby was born dead. The other baby was named saddat (refuge). We
beard that our house was set on fire and some of om neighbors were killed. Eight days after weleft our village, I heard that order was restored in Woshero k'ebele. Then we returned.<2.>J
It took about 1 week for order to be restored.

Paths connecting the main road to villages in

Woshero k'ebele and Shota k'ebele were blockaded by theManjo. At that time, there were no police
stationed permanently in these k'ebefes. Two policemen were assigned to patrol four k'ebeles (Oda,
Yina, Woshero, and Shota), and they were usually in Oda k'ebele. Mter the incident, police in tl1e
Kafa zone gathered in Bita wiiriida, and federal police troops were dispatched from Awasa. In theprocess of entering Woshero k'ebele and Shota k'ebele, local and federal police forces burned down
Manjo houses; some federal police shot and killedManjo. Mter they surrendered, theManjo were
disarmed, and approximately 40 guns were confiscated. Manjo raiders caught by the police confessed
everything about the attack.
A policeman who took part in the suppression of the disturbance told me that those who had led

the attack were ex-soldiers in the Derg army.(24l According to this policeman, the ex-soldiers taught
otherManjo how to use guns, dig trenches, and fight. The :Nianjo constructed temporary houses in
the forest in which the women and children could take shelter. The preparations took about 15 to 30
days. 1herefore, it was quite difficult for the police to track down theManjo.
A week after the incident, word had gotten around that the disturbance had settled down. How­ever, Kafa residents ofWoshero k'ebele and Shota k'ebele did not return to their villages immediately. It

was not until 23March that the first Kafa returned to the area to find that livestock had been stolen
or lost and shops had been looted.

YOSHIDA: Searching for a Way out of Social Discrimination

55

A Kafa school teacher described his experience at Woshero. An armed Ma.njo passed the front
gate of the school. At that time, the teachers were hiding in a classroom with a gun that they had
obtained from a school guru·d. To their surprise, the Manjo merely passed by, leaving them. The
Ma.njo did not intend to kill Kafa indiscriminately but rather had selected in advance a few people astargets of the assault.

5.3. Background ofthe incident
Before the incident, there had been rumors. A Kafa informant testified that he had seen a Manjo buybullets in Tepi and bring them to the village in a plastic tank.l25l Another Kafa said that he had heard
several Manjo talking about the A.nywaa preparing a riot in Tepi. Some Kafa had even heard rumorsthat the Manjo were planning an attack.l26l However, administrative officials .regarded these rumors
as groundless and ignored them.
Regarding the cause of this incident, there were two theories. 111e fu·st was that the incident wasan act of resistance to social discrimination; many Kafa informants referred not only to everyday
discrimination against the Manjo by the Kafa, but to one incident in particular.l27l In 1994/1995, theprice of domestic coffee soared, and coffee producers, including the Manjo, gained a n unprecedented
high income. Manjo coffee producers, some of whom were now wealthier than their Kafa oeigbbo.rs,
began to buy goods and clothes of the same quality as those brought by Kafa. One day at the market
in Woshero k'ebele, a Manjo man was wearing a hat identical to that of his Kafa neighbor. The Kafa
and his friends quarreled with the man, because Manjo were not supposed to wear clothes of the same
quality as Kafa. The quarrel was settled, but later those same Kafa ambushed ilie man on his way toa village in Shota k'ebele. 111e Manjo tried to run away, but the Kafa stabbed him in the back, killinghim. The victims targeted in the Shota k'ebele incident in 2002 were relatives of the Kafa who killed
this man. Therefore, many Kafa considered the 2002 incident to be retaliation for ilie attack on the
Manjo.
The second theory was a political one. On the same day of the Manjo attack, the Majangir and
Sheko had attacked their Shekacho neighbors and the wiiriida administration office and police sta­tion in Tepi (Sato 2005: 284; Vaughan 2006: 199). Some people, including the local government,
associated this incident with the dismissal of the Manjo petition.(lS) W hen federal police arrived, they
arrested the Manjo man who had played a central role in creating the petition and set fire to his housein Bach'i k'ebele. Initially, the police considered this person to be the leader of the attack. However,in the case ofWoshero k'ebele and Shota k'ebele, those assaulted were not government officials but
citizens. This Manjo man said to me:

I was a real nuisance for the government. W hile I was involved in the movement, the federal
policemen had designs on my life many times. But we did not wish to resort to violence. We
only wanted to appeal to the government to improve the social situation of the Manjo by peace­

ful means. But some Manjo tried to change ilie situation by violence. Consequently, much to
my regret, it became an event with violence.l29l
Different people explained the incident from different points of view. Depending on the person,
the distw·bance was caused by Manjo who either were frustrated with discrimination by the Kafa,
were frustrated with the government for dismissing their petition, or held a grudge against a par­ticular Kafa who had killed a relative. Considering that most of these explanations refer only to thegeneral conditions under which most of the Manjo lived, they cannot satisfactorily explain why ilie
incident occurred only among certain Manjo groups.
5. 4. Distinctivefeatures ofManjo in the westem Kafo zone

111.ree characteristics differentiate Manjo residing in western Kafa zone from Manjo living in otl1er
areas.
First, the Manjo in this ru-ea are wealthier than others, having gained cash income f rom coffee

Nilo-Ethiopian Studies

56

cultivation. Therefore, the lives ofManjo in the western Kafa zone are not much different from thoseof the Kafa.
Second, this area is adjacent to Sheka zone and is near Tepi, a densely populated, multiethnic area
where Majangir, Sheko, Gimira, Shekacho, and Amhara live side by side. In the Kafa zone, the lan­
guage used in schools is Kaji-noono, whereas in the Sheka zone, it is Amharic. People living in thisarea, whether they are Kafa, Shekacho, or Manjo, are accustomed to speaking Amharic. Moreover,Tepi, the entrepot of the area, is connected with Addis Ababa by public transportation. Because ofthis, the Manjo have contact with people belonging to various other ethnic groups. Among them,
the Majangir and the Sheko are well educated and have their own political parry (i.e., the Sheko­
M3:jangir Democratic Unity Party). Being in close contact with the Majangir and the Sheko meansthat the Manjo are familiru· ''Vith the right to self-determination. Thus, it is not surprising that the2002 Manjo attack broke out on the same day of the Tepi uprising by the Majangir and the Sheko.
Manjo living in the western Kafa zone were clearly strongly influenced by the political ideas of theseneighbors.
Third, a number ofManjo men in this area served in the military during the Derg era. In fact, theproportion of Mru1jo soldiers is larger than that of Kafa in the Kafa zone, due to the fact that Kafa
men caught Manjo men and handed them over to the militruy to avoid the.ir own conscription. Mterthe collapse of the Derg regime, these ex-soldiers returned to their homelands. They were not only
armed with weapons but also knew how to fight. In the military, they had been treated as equalsof the soldiers from other ethnic groups. It is thus not surprising that the returning Manjo soldiers
were dissatisfied with the outspoken discrimination against them by the Kafa residents and ultimately
played a pivotal role in the incident.
5.5. Aftermath ofthe attack

News about the 2002 incident spread in and around the Kafa and Sheka zones, and the public me­
dia also reported on it. Its impact was tremendous, because the incident shattered the image of the
Maojo as a "poor and humble people living in the forest."
Mter the incident, seven policemen were assigned to keep the two k'ebe/es under control, and apolice station was established in Woshero k'ebele.

In addition to their usual salary, the policemen

were paid an extra allowance of 7 bin· per day. Mter a while, the number of officers was reduced totwo; they are stationed in Woshero k'ebefe and patrol Woshero k'ebefe and Shota k'ebefe. In addition tocreating a police station, the local government improved social welfare services in the two k'ebefes. For
example, in Woshero k'ebele, a public water pump was installed and a clinic was built, while in Shota

k'ebefe, an elementary school was constructed.
The local administration also changed. Shota k.'ebefe elected a new head, as the former had beenmurdered in the attack. 1he head of Woshero k'ebele took responsibility for the attack and was re­
moved. The head administrator of Bita wiir·iida was removed, and a Manjo man was appointed as a
new sub-administrator of Bita wiiriida. Moreover, Manjo who had played a central role in preparing
and submitting the petitions i n 1997 received positions in the local administration in Yeki wiiriida in2005.
Two hundred forty one Manjo were taken into custody.(30) They were subjected to judicial pro­cedures and were sentenced according to the role they played in the incident. Some were jailed in
Bonga, and others were imprisoned in Mizan Teferi. However, it was not only Manjo who were ar­rested. A Kafa man, whose father owned a gun and had mmdered the Manjo leader, was also arrested.
The trial of the latter was entrusted to the Supreme Court of the SNNPR, because it was recognizedthat a fair judgment could not be expected in the High Court of the Kafa zone because the judge wasa Kafa. Manj o prisoners were just being released on probation when I started my field research.
To reach a common understanding on the social background of the incident, the federal govern­
ment held public hearings and conferences in B onga and Mizan Teferi. However, Manjo who werein jail at that time could not participate. Moreover, Manjo who resided i n the Sheka zone were notinvited to attend the meetings, even though the attack had first occmred in that region. In the mean-

YOSHJDA: Searching for a Way our of Social Discrimination

57

time, the state government was inquiring into the attack and conducting research on the Manjo andtheir history. 1J1e results were compiled in a 22-page report distributed at the 2003 public hearings.
As a result of this official intervention, discrimination against the Manjo in Kafa zone came to betreated as a human rights issue.
A number ofNGOs such as FARM Mrica, S.O.S. Sahel Ethiopia, and Action Aid Ethiopia initi­
ated various campaigns to abolish this discrimination. FARM Mrica started the Participatory Forest
Management project for the Manjo in 1996. In 2002, this project became a patt of the FARM Mrica
atld S.O.S. Sahel Ethiopia project. Action Aid Ethiopia has conducted projects for the Manjo in Bita

wiiriida and Decha wiiriida since 2005. However, some Manjo complained that these NGOs (prob­
ably due to a lack of information about the incident) concentrate their projects only in the Kafa zone
instead ofYeki wiiriida in the Sheka zone, where the incident originally occurred.
The 2002 incident affected the social relationship between the Manjo and the Kafa. The areas
where the incident took place became unusually peaceful and quiet, because many Manjo men werearrested, which left only Manjo women, children, and elders in the villages. Manjo and Kafa began
to greet one another by shaking hands, and Manjo were allowed to drink b<?rz in restaurants owned
by Kafa. In restaurants, Kafa and Manjo began speaking with one another; however, this does notnecessarily indicate peace. A Manjo informant told me:

I never saw this kind of situation before the attack. I think the Kafa still dislike the Manj o intheir hearts, but the Kafa are trying to build good relationship with the Manjo.P1>
ln the initial phase of my research, the atmosphere was still very tense. When I asked some people
about the incident, most of them either refused to answer or evaded my question. The incident
brought about an awkward situation in which the Kafa and the Manjo pretended to have made peacewith one another. A Manjo informant told me that the Kafa whose family member had been killedby the Manjo was very angry and hated the Manjo, and the Manjo involved in the murder feared
personal retaliation from the Kafa.
If a Manjo and a Kafa happened to quarrel with each other in the k'ebefe, it was to be reported to
the k'ebele head at once. Apparent conflicts between Kafa and Manjo were suppressed due to thefearful memories of the attack. This was true even of children. For exatnple, according to a teacher in
the Woshero elementary school, when a Manjo student and a Kafa student quarreled at school, older

students instantly interfered and said, "Do you want to cause an event like in 2002 ?"<32l

The image of the Manjo held by the Kafa also changed somewhat. Before the 2002 incident, theManjo were considered poor people living in the forest. Now the Manjo have a new image, th<itof "dangerous and cruel people." To at1 outsider, the relationship between the Kafa and the Matljo
seemed normal, peaceful, and amicable, but this relationship was merely a cover for an uneasy ten­sion.

6. CONCLUSION
The 2002 attack was rooted in social discrimination against the Manjo. However, a close examination
into the incident reveals complex social factors at play. The Manjo obtain cash income from agricul­
ture, and those who reside in the western Kafa and eastern Sheka zones, in particular, are wealthy andeducated. The lifestyles and living standards of the Manjo and the Kafa in this area differ little. In
addition, the political activities of the Majangir and the Sheko have affected the Manjo, making themvery conscious of their political and humanitarian rights.
The incident had a serious effect on the relationship between the Manjo and the Kafa in general.
A Manjo informant told me that his people are encouraged by the incident, even though they areagainst violence. The Manjo, not just those residing in the Kafa zone, are beginning to feel that thelong-stat1ding discrimination by their neighbors, with whom they share the same language and cui-

58

Nilo-Ethwpian Studies

ture, is unbearable and unjustifiable.
In the Kafa zone, the government has taken measures for affirmative action in education, andManjo can now enter the boarding school for minority groups established in Arba Minchi in 1998.
This has produced a group of educated individuals. Today, Manjo graduates from this school arebeing appointed as teachers, police officers, and agricultural managers. Since the 2002 incident, cam­paigns for education launched by NGOs and the government have increased. Although only a few
Manjo are educated, they have become a role model for the yow1ger generation attending school.
The social life of the Manjo is also changing. When I spoke with Manjo, they often complained
about the discrimination against them by the Kafa. They asked, 'Why aren't the M anjo equal to the
Kafa?", "Why can't Manjo marry Kafa?", "Why is there no Manjo administrator?" The Manjo feelthat they have been deprived of their right to self-determination and have begun to insist on thisright. 'TI1e 2002 incident created a new opportunity to discuss the social discrimination of minorities
and human rights issues.

NOTES(1) Vaughan (2003: 276) reported the Manjo incident had occurred several days after the incident in Tepi.
According to my informant, however, the Manjo incident and the incident in Tepi took place on the sameday.

(2) After I had completed my master's thesis on th.is incident, Vaughan published a paper in which she re­ported and analyzed the same incident (Vaughan 2006; see also Yoshida 2007). Although my analysis was
obtained from my own field research, it mostly agreed with Vaughan's findings. In this paper, I present
some details of the incident that Vaughan omitted and support these findings with statements from lo­cals.

(3) This article is based on information and data collected in my research in the Kafa zone, which was con­ducted i.n three phases: (1) from January to March 2005 in Bita wiiriida; (2) from August 2005 to Febru­
ary 2006 in Bita wiiriida, Gesha wii1·iida, Manjiwo wiiriida, and Decha wiiriida; and (3) from August to
October 2006 in Gimbo wiiriida and Gesha wii1iida. Fieldwork in Woshero k'ebele and Shota k'ebele took
5 months. Institute of Ethiopian Studies supported my research. The second and third phases of researchwere funded by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology). 1he research was conducted under the project "Historical Investigation of Eth­
nic Conflict in the Process of Nation State Building: A Comparative Study on Northeast African Societ­ies" (Project Leader, Katsuyoshi Fukui, Kyoto University, Project No. 17251014).

( 4) 1he immigration of the Amhara from northern Ethiopia to the Kafa zone occmred in three major phases.
Initial groups followed Menelik's conquest of the area in 1897. The second influx took place dm-ing the
Italian occupation; the third resulted from the resettlement policy of the Derg regime ( Vaughan 2006:
194).
(5) Although its origin is unclear, it is generally understood that the word Gomoro derives from tl1e fact that
the Kafa used to hunt and eat hippopotamus (gumare in Amharic) in the Gojeb River (Orent 1969: 47).
(6) The Manno eat the meat remaining on the hide when they skin an animal. Because of this, they are dis ­criminated against by t11e Kafa.

(7) This estimate was given to me by the Head Administrator of the Kafa zone. According to this estimate,
the Manjo account for 1.1% to 1.4% of the entire population of the Kafa zone. 1his seems to be more
appropriate than an estimate mentioned by Freeman and Pankhurst (2003b: 76). Qyoting data from vanHalteren (1996: 4), they estimated that the Manjo account for 5 to 10% of the entire population in the
Kafa and Sheka zones.

(8) Pottery is customarily made by women of the Manno and the Manjo.
(9) According to Lange (1982: 267), the Manjo should be distinguished from slaves. The Manjo have theirown clans, different from those of the Kafa. A Manjo informant told me that the Manjo and the Kafa were
not the same, that the first king of the Kafa kingdom was a Manjo, and that the Kafa were newcomers andusurpers of the tluone. Lange (1982: 181) refere nced a similar story.

(10) Mengistu (2003: 101) pointed out that the Manjo who live in the Sheka zone are not considered to be
human.

YOSI-IIDA: Searching for a Way out of Social Discrimination

59(11) The Kafa kingdom consisted of administrative units called worafos. Each worafo was governed by a Kafa
( Worafo-rasha). Manji-rasha covered d1e Manjo residents under Worajo-rasha. Manji-guudo was a Manjo
who worked under Manji-rasha.
(12) Interview with a Manjo woman, Gesha wihiida, 29 November 2006.
(13) ]nterview with a Manjo man, Gesha wiiriida, 19 January 2006.
(14) Interview with a Manjo man, Bita wiin7da, March 2005.
(15) Before the Derg period, the Manjo were not allowed to attend school; thus, most of the Manjo were de­prived of the opportunity to receive an education.
(16) Series of interviews with the Manjo man (resident of Bach'i k'ebele of Yeki wiiriida) who submitted thepetition. lnterviews were c onducted at Bach'i k'ebele, 14 and 19 November 2005; and Tepi, 27-28 January
2006.
(17) According ro this man, the Manjo population was 77,389 in the Kafa zone and 31,543 in the Sheka zone
in 2000/2001. The nwnber ofManjo clans was more than 40.
(18) These passages were quoted from a book on Kafa history written in Amharic (Takle 1985).
(19) Interview with a Manjo man, Woshero k'ebele, l March 2005.
(20) Although it is difficult to determine with great accuracy the Manjo population of these k'ebeles, the highpercentage of Manjo sn1dents in the Woshero elementary school (40%, or 277 of 695 students in 2005)
indicates the Manjo make up a large proportion of the population.
(21) Interview with a Kafa policeman, Woshew k'ebele, 8 March 2005.
(22) Interview with a Kafa man, Woshero k'ebele, 6 March 2005.
(23) Inrerview with a Kafa man, Woshero k'ebele, 8 March 2005.
(24) Interview with a Kafa policeman, Woshero k'ebe/e, 8 March 2005.
(25) Interview with a K.afa man, Woshero k'ebele, 6 March 2005.
(26) Interview with a Kafa man, Woshero k'ebele, 6 March 2005.
(27) Interview with a Kafa man, Woshero k'ebele, 6 March 2005.
(28) Interview with Kafa and Manjo men, residents ofWoshe.ro k'ebele, March 2005.
(29) Interview with a Manjo man, Tepi, 27-28 January 2006.
(30) Interview with a Kafa policeman, Bita Genet, 19 February 2008.
(31) Interview with a Manjo man, Woshero k'ebele, March 2005.
(32) Interview with a Kafa man, Woshero k'ebele, 8 March 2005.

REFERENCES

Beckingham, C. F. & Huntingford, G. W. B. (eds.)
1954 Some Records ofEthiopia 1593-1646: Being Extmcts from the Histo1y of High Ethiopia or Abassia byManoel de Almeida together with Bahrey's History ofthe Galla. London: Hakluyt Society.
Bieber, F. j.
1920 Kaffa: Ein altkusschitisches Volkstum in Inner-Afrika. 2 v. Mi.inster.
Ethiopian Human Rights Council
2002 49th Special Report, A Conflict That Resulted in Many Deaths in Tepi, Shekicho Zone, 2 May 2003.
http://www.ehrco.org/Reports/special49. pdf (accessed January 15, 2008).
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
1995 1he Comtitution ofthe Federal Democratic Republic ofEthiopia. Addis Ababa.
Freeman, D. & Pankhw-st, A . (eds.)
2003a Peripheral People: The Excluded Minorities ofEthiopia. Asmara: Red Sea Press.
2003b 1he North-West. In D. Freeman & A. Pankhurst (eds.), Peripheral People: The Excluded Minorities of
Ethiopia. Asmara: Red Sea Press, pp. 70-79.
Gamst, F. C.
1978 Wayto Ways: Change from Hunting to Peasant Life. In hoceedings of the Fifth Intemational Confer­ence on Ethiopian Studies, pp. 233-238.
Gezahegn Petros
2003
Ka£'1. In D. Freeman & A. Pankhurst (eds.), Peripheral People: The Excluded Minorities of Ethiopia.
Asmara: Red Sea Press, pp. 80-96.
Human Rights Watch

60

Nilo-Ethiopian Studies

2003

Ethiopia lessons in repression: Violations ofacademic freedom in Ethiopia, Vol . 15, No. 2 (A). http://

www. hrw.org/reports/2003/ethiopia0103/ (accessed January 15, 2008).

Huntingford, G. W. B.
1955
The Galla ofEthiopia: The Kingdom ofKafa and]anjero. London: International African Institute.
Ishlhara, M .
2003 The Cultural Logic o f Civiculture in Ethiopia. Nilo-Ethiop ian Studies 8/9: 35-60.
Lange, W. J.
1982 Hist01y ofthe Southern Gonga (Southern Ethiopia). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Mengistu Seyoum
2003 Shekacho. In D . Freeman &A. Pankhu.rst (eds.), Pel"ipheral People: The ExcludedMinol"ities ofEthiopia.
Asmara: Red Sea Press, pp. 97-104.
Miyawaki, Y. & Ishihara, M.
2005 Emergence of 'Peripheries' and the Formation of Modern Ethiopian State. In K. Fukui (ed.), So­cialised Eco-Resources. Kyoto: Kyoro University Press. pp. 1-32. (in Japanese).
Orenr,A.
1969
Lineage Structure and the Supematuml: The Kafa ofSouthern Ethiop ia. PhD Thesis. Boston University.
1 970a Dual organizations in Southern Ethiopia: Anthropological Imagination or Ethnographical Fact?
Ethnology 9 (3): 228-233.
1970b Refocusing on the History of Kafa Prior to 1897: A Discussion of Political Process. African Historical
Studies 3 (2): 263-293.
Pankhurst, A.
1999 'Caste' in Africa: 1he Evidence from South-Western Ethiopia Reconsidered. Africa 69 (4): 485509.
Sato, R.
Ethiopian Decentralization and a Peripheral People: A Dispute over Regional Borders and the Dis­2000
ruption of a Development Project. Afl"ica Report 30: 12-15. (in Japanese).
2005 Forest-living Tactics for Survival: Change and Continuity of the Majangir in the 20th Century. In K.
Fukui (ed.), Socialised £eo-Resources. Kyoto: Kyoto University Press, pp. 257-292. (in Japanese).
Takle Shalgito Shak'o1985 (E.C.) Kiifonna Tarikwa kii 1390-1897 kii Antonio Shichi (Sic}. Addis Ababa.
Van Halteren, B.
The Socio-Cultural and Socioeconomic Position of the Manjo o/ Kaffecho-Shekacho Zone (Identification
1996
Report). Bonga.
Vaughan, S.
2003
Ethnicity and Power in Ethiopia. PhD Thesis. The University ofEdinbmgh.
2006
Responses to Ethnic Federalism in Ethiopia's Southern Region. In D. Turton (ed.), Ethnic Federalism:
The Ethiopian Experience in Compm·ative Persp ective. Oxford: Jarnes Currey. pp. 181-207.
Yoshida, S.
2007
Construction of the Subject among the Manjo in the Modern Ethiopian State: From the Viewpoint o/the
DiSCiim inated. MA Thesis, Nanzan University. (in Japanese).

SAYURI YOSI-TIDA: Graduate School ofLetters, Nagoya Un iversity, Furo-cho, Chik.u.sa-ku, Nagoya, 464-8601,

Japan.