Maya Tessema, one of the leading voices behind Ogina, tells us what Ogina means, how it came about and about their first issue. Without further ado, I'll link you to the Ogina zine but I want to quote part of what she said about the first issue of Ogina below.

So in our first issue of Ogina, each of the contributions has taken on the task of creating art and conversation that looks both forward and backward. We look backward by drawing on the history we know to be painfully present, and look forward by finding new ways to understand and think about our situation. Through the interview with Joe Riemann of Equal Exchange, Steven Thomas’s essay on an Oromo Renaissance, the poetry of Efrata Obsa, Ziyad Kadir, and Hana Tesfaye, we are teaching each other to discuss Oromo-ness in new and challenging ways. The visual art of the Rammy Mohammed and Abdiwak Dawit Yohannes help us to see our situation in a new light. Siraj K. of Norway has helped us to navigate the growing complexity of Oromo identity in an unlikely way – by reprogramming an iphone in Afan Oromo and by contributing to the nascent Oromo Wikipedia.

But of course, this “new” art must have had some precedent, so we at Ogina would like to extend gratitude to Dhaba Wayessa for helping to create a pathway of Oromo art through his literature, and for allowing us to show his film The Fallen Beats in our inaugural issue.

As we are creating, questioning, and sharing our work, I remember what Pastor Gemechis Buba talked about at the fundraiser in March. He spoke of translating our “orality into literality” so that we may document and disseminate our world to others and to ourselves. This may be the first time many in the audience had been forced to consider that art is not merely ornamental or a display of cultural pride, but a medium where we figure things out as a community: speaking, responding and participating in the world as we have never done before.

From the Word: Genesis 8:20-22,  9:8-17

In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve chose to live independently of God.  The crown of creation, bearing the very image of the God who exists in eternal relationship, forfeited relationship and divine dependence in favor of a much harder and destructive existence.  Because they believed a lie about God’s identity, Adam and Eve charted a course for their offspring that put them in conflict with the very purpose for which they were created - to enjoy eternal, life-giving relationship with God.  Like an unfaithful spouse leaving her wedding ring and divorce papers on the kitchen counter as she walks out the door, the delight of God’s heart exited the relationship for which it was created.  For all legal purposes, God had no obligation to mankind.  Who would blame him for washing his hands of the whole mess and finding another lover on which to pour his affections? 

However, this is not the God of the Bible!  He watched his creation spiral out of control, was grieved to his very core and chose a gruesome act of mercy to save his lover from herself.  Once Noah and his family were off the ark, he offered a sacrifice to God as an act of worship.  This simple display of love moved the heart of God and, in response, he chose to bind himself again to mankind. 

It is nothing less than the extravagant love of God that moved him to reestablish his commitment to mankind.  How many times throughout the ages have we found ourselves enveloped again in such decadence that God would be justified in wiping the earth clean and starting all over?  How many times have I given him ample reason to call off our relationship?  But somehow he continues to hold mankind (and me) in the center of his love, giving us opportunity after opportunity to turn back to him in repentance and reconciliation.  This is God’s identity - a passionate, unrelenting lover who will employ gruesome acts of mercy like the flood and the cross to establish relationship with his bride. 

To Ponder or Discuss: I hope the story of Noah and the flood has caused you to wrestle with your understanding of God’s identity.  How will this impact your daily life?  When the next storm blows through your life or circumstances seem to explode with injustice all around you, how will you interpret them within your perception of God’s identity?  What will they say to you about how God sees you? 

As we head into the next campaign, the truism of Kipling’s line as applied to Canada has never seemed more obvious. For the interests of the regions of Canada are different, as is the reactions we see in them to events.

The point (today, at least) is not that one is right and the other wrong. Rather, it is something far less considered by the average person: that both can be right at once.

It was Werner Patels’ comment on the daveberta:Scott Tribe exchange that sparked this thought. For, as an ex-Ontarian (and someone who has just returned to BC from spending time with friends and relatives in Ontario) and now un homme de l’ouest, I see the truth of both of their positions.

(In passing, let’s remember that Canada is more than a simple “East vs West” — the country contains at least eight well-defined regions that seldom map well to provincial boundaries. Still, since the original discussion was between an Albertan and an Ontarian, the “East is East” construct commended itself.)

As with daveberta and Werner Patels, I find myself in agreement that all of the attempts to paint the Harper Government with scandal — including the “scandal” of actually musing aloud about going to the polls before the “fixed election date” — are water off the duck’s back of the West. Whether it’s In-and-Out, Couillard, Mulroney, or any other sujet de l’indignation, these are not topics of conversation in Western Canada. The whole exercise gets summed up — by Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Green supporters alike — as so much “noise” meaning nothing. (Well, perhaps not for some of the more partisan Liberals, but, then, to be fair, their attempts to stir the pot are going nowhere here even when done locally.)

So, agreed: none of it will hurt Harper’s election chances. This is as true in British Columbia as it is on the Prairies: in other words, the evaluation has nothing to do with Alberta’s penchant for block support.

What Scott Tribe doesn’t realize is that, for those of us out West, Harper’s Government is anything but right-wing. I say this speaking as a social libertarian: he has been Liberal-light, not the pseudo-fascist entity Scott seems to think must be thrown from power for the salvation of the nation (or some such rot). (There are neo-conservative and social conservative types in the Conservative Party, and Harper himself may be, underneath all his pragmatism and tactics, one of the red meat brigade himself — but his Government has done nothing to earn the opprobrium heaped upon it by Tribe & his fellows.)

Where Tribe does get it right, however, is in two things: (1) Harper is a demonstrated “control freak” (which offends anyone who thinks they and theirs ought to be in control instead), and (2) that different parts of the country will evaluate recent events differently: Ontario remembers Walkerton.

I write about all of this because the politicians know — but the media often hide — how different their campaigns must be in different parts of the country to succeed. An issue can be a great tool for growth in one area, and something requiring adroit defence simply to stem erosion in another.

As always, one’s strength is often also one’s weakness. The Conservatives go into this campaign with boatloads of money, a war room strategy, etc., all designed to seize control of the headlines on a day by day basis. That’s fine: it’s what every party should strive to do. The weakness will be centralized message control — which will translate into one campaign for everyone.

A little local adaptation within a policy framework is needed. The party that best does that should expect to do better in marginal seats.

RGB has some very nice work to look at...

...as does I Like Blue...