text:
Battle of Adwa

The Battle of Adwa (የዐድዋ ጦርነት; ውግእ ዓድዋ; battaglia di Adua, also spelled Adowa) was the climactic battle of the First Italo-Ethiopian War. Ethiopia managed to defeat the invading Italian force led by Oreste Baratieri on Sunday, March 1, 1896 near the town of Adwa. The decisive victory thwarted the campaign of the Kingdom of Italy to expand its colonial empire in the Horn of Africa. By the end of the 19th century, European powers had carved up almost all of Africa after the Berlin Conference; only Ethiopia and Liberia still maintained their independence. Adwa became a pre-eminent symbol of pan-Africanism and secured Ethiopian sovereignty until the Second Italo-Ethiopian War forty years later.

Background
In 1889, the Italians signed the Treaty of Wuchale with King Menelik of Shewa. The treaty, signed after the Italian occupation of Eritrea, recognized Italy's claim over the coastal colony. In it, Italy also promised to provide financial assistance and military supplies. A dispute later arose over the interpretation of the two versions of the document. The Italian-language version of the disputed Article 17 of the treaty stated that the Emperor of Ethiopia was obliged to conduct all foreign affairs through Italian authorities, effectively making Ethiopia a protectorate of the Kingdom of Italy. The Amharic version of the article, however, stated that the Emperor could use the good offices of the Kingdom of Italy in his relations with foreign nations if he wished. However, the Italian diplomats claimed that the original Amharic text included the clause and that Menelik II knowingly signed a modified copy of the Treaty.

The Italian government decided on a military solution to force Ethiopia to abide by the Italian version of the treaty. As a result, Italy and Ethiopia came into confrontation, in what was later to be known as the First Italo-Ethiopian War. In December 1894, Bahta Hagos led a rebellion against the Italians in Akele Guzai, in what was then Italian controlled Eritrea. Units of General Oreste Baratieri's army under Major Pietro Toselli crushed the rebellion and killed Bahta. In January 1895, Baratieri's army went on to defeat Ras Mengesha Yohannes in the Battle of Coatit, forcing Mengesha to retreat further south.

By late 1895, Italian forces had advanced deep into Ethiopian territory and occupied much of Tigray. On 7 December 1895, Ras Makonnen Wolde Mikael, Fitawrari Gebeyehu and Ras Mengesha Yohannes commanding a larger Ethiopian group of Menelik's vanguard annihilated a small Italian unit at the Battle of Amba Alagi. The Italians were then forced to withdraw to more defensible positions in Tigray Province, where the two main armies faced each other. By late February 1896, supplies on both sides were running low. General Oreste Baratieri, commander of the Italian forces, knew the Ethiopian forces had been living off the land, and once the supplies of the local peasants were exhausted, Emperor Menelik II's army would begin to melt away. However, the Italian government insisted that General Baratieri act.

On the evening of 29 February, Baratieri, about to be replaced by a new governor, General Baldissera, met with his generals Matteo Albertone, Giuseppe Arimondi, Vittorio Dabormida, and Giuseppe Ellena, concerning their next steps. He opened the meeting on a negative note, revealing to his brigadiers that provisions would be exhausted in less than five days, and suggested retreating, perhaps as far back as Asmara. His subordinates argued forcefully for an attack, insisting that to retreat at this point would only worsen the poor morale. Dabormida exclaimed, "Italy would prefer the loss of two or three thousand men to a dishonorable retreat." Baratieri delayed making a decision for a few more hours, claiming that he needed to wait for some last-minute intelligence, but in the end announced that the attack would start the next morning at 9:00am. His troops began their march to their starting positions shortly after midnight.

Ethiopian forces

 * Shewa; Negus Negasti Menelik II: 25,000 rifles / 3,000 horses / 32 guns
 * Semien; Itaghiè Taytu: 3,000 rifles / 600 horses / 4 guns
 * Gojjam; Negus Tekle Haymanot: 5,000 rifles
 * Harar; Ras Makonnen: 15,000 rifles
 * Tigray; Ras Mengesha Yohannes and Ras Alula: 12,000 rifles / 6 guns
 * Wollo; Ras Mikael: 6,000 rifles / 5,000 horses
 * Gondar; Ras Olié: 8,000 rifles
 * Lasta; Wagshum Guangul: 6,000 rifles
 * In addition there were ~20,000 spearmen and swordsmen as well as an unknown number of armed peasants.

Estimates for the Ethiopian forces under Menelik range from a low of 73,000 to a high of over 100,000 outnumbering the Italians by an estimated five times. The forces were divided among Emperor Menelik, Empress Taytu Betul, Ras Welle Betul, Ras Mengesha Atikem, Ras Mengesha Yohannes, Ras Alula Engida (Abba Nega), Ras Mikael of Wollo, Ras Makonnen Wolde Mikael, Fitawrari Habte Giyorgis, Fitawrari Gebeyyehu, and Negus Tekle Haymanot Tessemma. Pétridès (as well as Pankhurst, with slight variations) break the troop numbers down (over 100,000 by their estimates) as follows: 35,000 infantry (25,000 riflemen and 10,000 spearmen) and 8,000 cavalry under Emperor Menelik; 5,000 infantry under Empress Taytu; 8,000 infantry (6,000 riflemen and 2,000 spearmen) under Ras Wale; 8,000 infantry (5,000 riflemen and 3,000 spearmen) under Ras Mengesha Atikem, 12,000 riflemen, 5,000 spearmen, and 3,000 cavalry under Ras Mengesha Yohannes and Ras Alula Engida; 6,000 riflemen, 5,000 spearmen, and 5,000 Oromo cavalry under Ras Mikael of Wollo; 15,000 riflemen under Ras Makonnen; 8,000 infantry under Fitawrari Gebeyyehu Gora; 5,000 riflemen, 5,000 spearmen, and 3,000 cavalry under Negus Tekle Haymanot of Gojjam. In addition, the armies were followed by a similar number of camp followers who supplied the army, as had been done for centuries. Most of the army consisted of riflemen, a significant percentage of whom were in Menelik's reserve; however, there were also a significant number of cavalry and infantry only armed with lances (those with lances were referred to as "lancer servants").

Italian forces
Immediately before the battle of Adwa, the Italian army consisted of 29,700 Italians and 14,000 askaris. However, as Harold Marcus notes, "several thousand" soldiers were needed in support roles and to guard the lines of communication to the rear. He accordingly estimates that the Italian force at Adwa consisted of just 14,519 effective combat troops. Where as, David L. Lewis estimates that the Italian army consisted of four brigades, totaling 17,770 troops with fifty-six artillery pieces. One brigade under General Albertone was made up of Eritrean Ascari led by Italian officers. The remaining three brigades were Italian units under Brigadiers Dabormida, Ellena and Arimondi. While these included elite Bersaglieri and Alpini units, a large proportion of the troops were inexperienced conscripts recently drafted from metropolitan regiments in Italy into newly formed "d'Africa" battalions for service in Africa. Additionally, a limited number of troops were from the Cacciatori d'Africa; units permanently serving in Africa and in part recruited from Italian settlers.

According to historian Chris Prouty:

"They [the Italians] had inadequate maps, old-model guns, poor communication equipment and inferior footgear for the rocky ground. (The newer Carcano Model 91 rifles were not issued because Baratieri, under constraints to be economical, wanted to use up the old cartridges). Morale was low as the veterans were homesick and the newcomers were too inexperienced to have any esprit de corps. There was a shortage of mules and saddles."

The Italian operational corps in Eritrea was under the command of General Oreste Baratieri. The chief of staff was Lieutenant Colonel Giacchino Valenzano.
 * Right column: (4,833 rifles / 18 cannons) 2nd Infantry Brigade (Gen. Vittorio Dabormida);
 * 3rd Africa Infantry Regiment, (Col. Ottavio Ragni)
 * 5th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Luigi Giordano)
 * 6th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Leopoldo Prato)
 * 10th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Gennaro De Fonseca)
 * 6th Africa Infantry Regiment (Col. Cesare Airaghi)
 * 3rd Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Luigi Branchi)
 * 13th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Alberto Rayneri)
 * 14th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Secondo Solaro)
 * Native Mobile Militia Battalion (Maj. Lodovico De Vito)
 * Native Company from the Asmara Chitet (Cpt. Alberto Sermasi)
 * 2nd Artillery Brigade (Maj. Alberto Zola)
 * 5th Mountain Artillery Battery (Cpt. Giuseppe Mottino)
 * 6th Mountain Artillery Battery (Cpt. Giuseppe Regazzi)
 * 7th Mountain Artillery Battery (Cpt. Vittorio Gisla)
 * Central column: (3,324 rifles / 12 cannons) 1st Infantry Brigade (Gen. Giuseppe Arimondi);
 * 1st Africa Bersaglieri Regiment (Col. Francesco Stevani)
 * 1st Africa Bersaglieri Battalion (Maj. Matteo De Stefano)
 * 2nd Africa Bersaglieri Battalion (Maj. Lorenzo Compiano)
 * 1st Africa Infantry Regiment (Col. Ugo Brusati)
 * 2nd Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Flaciano Viancini)
 * 4th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Luigi De Amicis)
 * 9th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Giuseppe Baudoin)
 * 1st Company of the 5th Native Battalion (Cpt. Pietro Pavesi)
 * 8th Mountain Artillery Battery (Cpt. Vincenzo Loffredo)
 * 11th Mountain Artillery Battery (Cpt. Giocanni Franzini)
 * Left column: (4,339 rifles / 14 cannons) Native Brigade (Gen. Matteo Albertone);
 * 1st Native Battalion (Maj. Domenico Turitto)
 * 6th Native Battalion (Maj. Giuseppe Cossu)
 * 5th Native Battalion (Maj. Rodolfo Valli)
 * 8th Native Battalion (Maj. Giocanni Gamerra)
 * "Okulè Kusai" Native Irregular Company (Lt. Alessandro Sapelli)
 * 1st Artillery Brigade (Maj. Francesco De Rosa)
 * 1st Native Mountain Artillery Battery (Cpt. Clemente Henry)
 * 2nd Section of the 2nd Native Mountain Artillery Battery (Lt. Arnaldo Vibi)
 * 3rd Mountain Artillery Battery (Cpt. Edoardo Bianchini)
 * 4th Mountain Artillery Battery (Cpt. Umberto Masotto)
 * Reserve column: (3,032 rifles /12 cannons) 3rd Infantry Brigade (Gen. Giuseppe Ellena);
 * 4th Africa Infantry Regiment (Col. Giovanni Romero)
 * 7th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Alberto Montecchi)
 * 8th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Achille Violante)
 * 11th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Sebastiano Manfredi)
 * 12th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Rinaldo Amatucci)
 * 5th Africa Infantry Regiment (Col. Luigi Nava)
 * 15th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Achille Ferraro)
 * 16th Africa Infantry Battalion (Maj. Bugenio Vandiol)
 * 1st Africa Alpini Battalion (Lt. Col. Davide Menini)
 * 3rd Native Battalion (Lt. Col. Giuseppe Galliano)
 * 1st Quick Fire Artillery Battery (Cpt. Giovanni Aragno)
 * 2nd Quick Fire Artillery Battery (Cpt. Domencio Mangia)
 * Sappers company

Budget restrictions and supply shortages meant that many of the rifles and artillery pieces issued to the Italian reinforcements sent to Africa were obsolete models, while clothing and other equipment was often substandard. The logistics and training of the recently arrived conscript contingents from Italy were inferior to the experienced colonial troops based in Eritrea.

Battle
On the night of 29 February and the early morning of 1 March, three Italian brigades advanced separately towards Adwa over narrow mountain tracks, while a fourth remained camped. David Levering Lewis states that the Italian battle plan called for three columns to march in parallel formation to the crests of three mountains – Dabormida commanding on the right, Albertone on the left, and Arimondi in the center – with a reserve under Ellena following behind Arimondi. The supporting crossfire each column could give the others made the 'soldiers as deadly as razored shears'. Albertone's brigade was to set the pace for the others. He was to position himself on the summit known as Kidane Mehret, which would give the Italians the high ground from which to meet the Ethiopians. However, the three leading Italian brigades had become separated during their overnight march and by dawn were spread across several miles of very difficult terrain. Their sketchy maps caused Albertone to mistake one mountain for Kidane Meret, and when a scout pointed out his mistake, Albertone advanced directly into the Ethiopian positions.

Unbeknownst to General Baratieri, Emperor Menelik knew his troops had exhausted the ability of the local peasants to support them and had planned to break camp the next day (2 March). The Emperor had risen early to begin prayers for divine guidance when spies from Ras Alula, brought him news that the Italians were advancing. The Emperor summoned the separate armies of his nobles and with the Empress Taytu Betul beside him, ordered his forces forward. Negus Tekle Haymanot commanded the right wing with his troops from Gojjam, Ras Mengesha in the left with his troops from Tigray, Ras Makonnen leading the center with his troops, and Ras Mikael at the north side leading the Wollo Oromo cavalry. In the reserves on the hills just west of Adwa, were the Emperor Menelik and Empress Taitu, with the warriors of Ras Olié and Wagshum Guangul. The Ethiopian forces positioned themselves on the hills overlooking the Adwa valley, in perfect position to receive the Italians, who were exposed and vulnerable to crossfire.

Albertone's Ascari Brigade was the first to encounter the onrush of Ethiopians at 06:00AM, near Kidane Meret. The Ethiopian units closest to Albertone's advanced position on the slopes of the Hill of Enda Kidane Meret first moved to the attack. The first group to engage with Albertone was the Tigray army under the command of Ras Mengesha and Ras Alula. They were immediately joined by troops under Negus Tekle Haymanot, Ras Makonnen and Ras Mikael while those of Wagshum Guangul and Ras Olié came up soon after, so a large proportion of the Ethiopian army was soon concentrated against Albertone's isolated Ascari Brigade. Initially the Italian artillery inflicted heavy casualties on the Ethiopian formations until a portion of the Ethiopians led by Balcha Safo deployed their quick-firing Hotchkiss guns on the lower side of Mount Abba Gerima and Albertone's advantage in artillery fire was removed. Albertone's heavily outnumbered Ascaris held their position for two hours until Albertone's surrender, and under Ethiopian pressure the survivors sought refuge with Arimondi's brigade. Arimondi's brigade beat back the armies of Harar, Tigray, Wollo, Gondar and Lasta who repeatedly charged the Italian positions for three hours with gradually fading strength until Menelik released his reserve of 25,000 Shewans and overran the Italian defenders. Arimondi's brigade now broke and fled, the officers and a few ascari who remained with them were soon overwhelmed. Two companies of Bersaglieri who arrived at the same moment could not help and were cut down.

General Baratieri, realizing that the battle was lost, ordered a general retreat. He tried to get the last uncommitted units of the Italian reserve column led by General Ellena to cover the retreat. But before they could form up, their lines were broken by a flood of fleeing Italian soldiers. The reserve had no chance to form a coherent defence and were overwhelmed within minutes. By noon, the Italian center was completely broken and the Ethiopian cavalry from Shewa and Wollo then pursued the fleeing Italians relentlessly, as Berkeley records from eyewitness accounts, "the Abyssinians wild with enthusiasm then rushed in upon them, reckless of losses and death." General Arimondi's mule ran away in the confusion and Arimondi as well as almost all his officers were cut down.

Dabormida's Italian Brigade had moved to support Albertone but was unable to reach him in time. Cut off from the remainder of the Italian army, Dabormida was unaware that the other Italian troops had been annihilated as he had not received any communication from Baratieri. The Ethiopians who had just defeated Generals Arimondi's and Ellena's brigades were now moving to encircle Dabormida's brigade from the rear. By 3:00PM Dabormida, still unaware of the rout of the rest of the army, now began a desperate attempt to break out of the encirclement and make a hasty retreat. However, he inadvertently marched his command into a narrow valley where the Wollo Oromo cavalry under Ras Mikael slaughtered his brigade. Dabormida's remains were never found, although an old woman living in the area said that she had given water to a mortally wounded Italian officer, "a chief, a great man with spectacles and a watch, and golden stars".

The retreating columns under Baratieri were harried for nine miles before the Ethiopian cavalry gave up the pursuit, fires were then lit on the highest hilltops to signal local peasants to attack Italian and Ascari stragglers. Baratieri's defeated army continued to retreat throughout the night, crossing the Belessa River and reaching Italian Eritrea by March 4. Back at the battlefield the Ethiopians were celebrating, chanting "Mow, mow down the tender grass! The corn of Italy that was sown in Tigré has been reaped by Menelik, and he has given it to the birds!"

Immediate aftermath
George Berkeley records that the Italian casualties were approximately 6,100 men killed: 261 officers, 2,918 white NCOs and privates, with 954 permanently missing, and about 2,000 ascari dead. Another 1,428 were wounded – 470 Italians (including 31 officers) and 958 ascari. In addition, 1,865 Italians and 2,000 ascaris were taken prisoner. Richard Caulk estimates that the number of Italians killed were 300 officers, 4,600 Italian rank, and 1,000 askari for a total of 5,900 dead. Moreover, 1,000 escaped wounded and at least 2,000 were captured. Citing contemporary figures, Caulk records Ethiopian losses to be 3,886 killed and 6,000 wounded. On the other hand, Berkeley estimates Ethiopian losses to be 7,000 killed and 10,000 wounded. In their desperate flight to Eritrea, the Italians left behind all of their artillery and 11,000 rifles, as well as most of their transport. As Paul B. Henze notes, "Baratieri's army had been completely annihilated while Menelik's was intact as a fighting force and gained thousands of rifles and a great deal of equipment from the fleeing Italians."

800 captured Eritrean Ascari, regarded as traitors by the Ethiopians, had their right hands and left feet amputated. Augustus Wylde records that when he visited the battlefield months after the battle, the pile of severed hands and feet was still visible, "a rotting heap of ghastly remnants." Many mutilated Ascari did not survive. Wylde wrote how the neighborhood of Adwa "was full of their freshly dead bodies; they had generally crawled to the banks of the streams to quench their thirst, where many of them lingered unattended and exposed to the elements until death put an end to their sufferings."

Despite some instances of abuse, the Italian prisoners were generally treated better by the Ethiopians. Among the prisoners was General Albertone. Chris Prouty notes that Albertone was given into the care of Azaj Zamanel, commander of Empress Taytu's personal army, and "had a tent to himself, a horse and servants". However, around 70 Italian prisoners were massacred in retaliation for the death of Bashah Aboye. The officer responsible for the massacre was reportedly imprisoned by Menelik.

Public opinion in Italy was outraged. Chris Prouty offers a panoramic overview of the response in Italy to the news: "When news of the calamity reached Italy there were street demonstrations in most major cities. In Rome, to prevent these violent protests, the universities and theatres were closed. Police were called out to disperse rock-throwers in front of Prime Minister Crispi's residence. Crispi resigned on 9 March. Troops were called out to quell demonstrations in Naples. In Pavia, crowds built barricades on the railroad tracks to prevent a troop train from leaving the station. The Association of Women of Rome, Turin, Milan and Pavia called for the return of all military forces in Africa. Funeral masses were intoned for the known and unknown dead. Families began sending to the newspapers letters they had received before Adwa in which their menfolk described their poor living conditions and their fears at the size of the army they were going to face. King Umberto declared his birthday (14 March) a day of mourning. Italian communities in St. Petersburg, London, New York, Chicago, Buenos Aires and Jerusalem collected money for the families of the dead and for the Italian Red Cross."

Aftermath
Emperor Menelik decided not to follow up on his victory by attempting to drive the routed Italians out of their colony. The victorious Emperor limited his demands to little more than the abrogation of the Treaty of Wuchale. In the context of the prevailing balance of power, the emperor's crucial goal was to preserve Ethiopian independence. In addition, Ethiopia had just begun to emerge from a long and brutal famine; Harold Marcus reminds us that the army was restive over its long service in the field, short of rations, and the short rains which would bring all travel to a crawl would soon start to fall. At the time, Menelik claimed a shortage of cavalry horses with which to harry the fleeing soldiers. Chris Prouty observes that "a failure of nerve on the part of Menelik has been alleged by both Italian and Ethiopian sources." Lewis believes that it "was his farsighted certainty that total annihilation of Baratieri and a sweep into Eritrea would force the Italian people to turn a bungled colonial war into a national crusade" that stayed his hand.

As a direct result of the battle, Italy signed the Treaty of Addis Ababa, recognizing Ethiopia as an independent state. Almost forty years later, on 3 October 1935, after the League of Nations's weak response to the Abyssinia Crisis, the Italians launched a new military campaign endorsed by Benito Mussolini, the Second Italo-Ethiopian War. This time the Italians employed vastly superior military technology such as tanks and aircraft, as well as chemical warfare, and the Ethiopian forces were defeated by May 1936. Following the war, Italy occupied Ethiopia for five years (1936–41), before eventually being driven out during World War II by British Empire forces and Ethiopian Arbegnoch guerillas.

Significance
"The confrontation between Italy and Ethiopia at Adwa was a fundamental turning point in Ethiopian history," writes Henze. On a similar note, the Ethiopian historian Bahru Zewde observed that "few events in the modern period have brought Ethiopia to the attention of the world as has the victory at Adwa".

This defeat of a colonial power and the ensuing recognition of African sovereignty became rallying points for later African nationalists during their struggle for decolonization, as well as activists and leaders of the Pan-African movement. As the Afrocentric scholar Molefe Asante explains, "After the victory over Italy in 1896, Ethiopia acquired a special importance in the eyes of Africans and black people all over the world alike, as the only surviving African State that successfully defeated a European colonial power in open battle. Italy's government who had viewed them as an inferior barbaric race were brought to their knees and subsequently forced to recognize the African nation of Ethiopia as an equal. After Adowa, Ethiopia became emblematic of African valor and resistance, the bastion of prestige and hope to thousands of Africans who were experiencing the full shock of European conquest and were beginning to search for an answer to the myth of African and black inferiority as well as invoking a strong sense of Pan-Africanism towards to people of African-american origins who had suffered equally appalling injustices at the time and many centuries before."

On the other hand, many writers have pointed out how this battle was a humiliation for the Italian military. Italian historian Tripodi argued that some of the roots of the rise of Fascism in Italy went back to this defeat and to the perceived need to "avenge" the defeat that started to be present in the military and nationalistic groups of the Kingdom of Italy. The same Mussolini declared when Italian troops occupied Addis Ababa in May 1936: Adua è vendicata (Adwa has been avenged).

Indeed, one student of Ethiopia's History, Donald N. Levine, points out that for the Italians Adwa "became a national trauma which demagogic leaders strove to avenge. It also played no little part in motivating Italy's revanchist adventure in 1935". Levine also noted that the victory "gave encouragement to isolationist and conservative strains that were deeply rooted in Ethiopian culture, strengthening the hand of those who would strive to keep Ethiopia from adopting techniques imported from the modern West – resistances with which both Menelik and Haile Selassie would have to contend".

Public holiday
The Adwa Victory Day is a public holiday in all regional states and charter cities across Ethiopia. All schools, banks, post offices and government offices are closed, with the exceptions of health facilities. Some taxi services and public transports choose not to operate on this day. Shops are normally open but most close earlier than usual.

Public celebrations
The Victory of Adwa, being a public holiday, is commemorated in public spaces. In Addis Ababa, the Victory of Adwa is celebrated at Menelik Square with the presence of government officials, patriots, foreign diplomats and the general public. The Ethiopian Police Orchestra play various patriotic songs as they walk around Menelik Square.

The public dress up in traditional Ethiopian patriotic attire. Men often wear Jodhpurs and various types of vest; they carry the Ethiopian flag and various patriotic banners and placards, as well as traditional Ethiopian shields and swords called Shotel. Women dress up in different patterns of handcrafted traditional Ethiopian clothing, known in Amharic as Habesha kemis. Some wear black gowns over all, while others put royal crowns on their heads. Women's styles of dress, like their male counterparts, imitate the traditional styles of Ethiopian patriotic women. Of particular note is the dominant presence of the Empress Taytu Betul during these celebrations.

The beloved and influential wife of Emperor Menelik II, Empress Taytu Betul, played a significant role during the Battle of Adwa. Although often overlooked, thousands of women participated in the Battle of Adwa. Some were trained as nurses to attend to the wounded, and others mainly cooked and supplied food and water to the soldiers and comforted the wounded.

In addition to Addis Ababa, other major cities in Ethiopia, including Bahir Dar, Debre Markos and the town of Adwa itself, where the battle took place, celebrate the Victory of Adwa in public ceremonies.

Symbols
Several images and symbols are used during the commemoration of the Victory of Adwa, including the tri-coloured green, gold and red Ethiopian flag, images of Emperor Menelik II and Empress Taytu Betul, as well as other prominent kings and war generals of the time including King Tekle Haymanot of Gojjam, King Michael of Wollo, Dejazmach Balcha Safo, Fitawrari Habte Giyorgis Dinagde, and Fitawrari Gebeyehu, among others. Surviving members of the Ethiopian patriotic battalions wear the various medals that they collected for their participation on different battlefields. Young people often wear T-shirts adorned by Emperor Menelik II, Empress Taytu, Emperor Haile Selassie and other notable members of the Ethiopian monarchy. Popular and patriotic songs are often played on amplifiers. Of particular note are Ejigayehu Shibabaw's ballad dedicated to the Battle of Adwa and Teddy Afro's popular song "Tikur Sew", which literally translates to "black man or black person" – a poetic reference to Emperor Menelik II's decisive African victory over Europeans, as well as the Emperor's darker skin complexion.

title: Battle of Adwa


text:
Bistability

In a dynamical system, bistability means the system has two stable equilibrium states. A bistable structure can be resting in either of two states. An example of a mechanical device which is bistable is a light switch. The switch lever is designed to rest in the "on" or "off" position, but not between the two. Bistable behavior can occur in mechanical linkages, electronic circuits, nonlinear optical systems, chemical reactions, and physiological and biological systems.

In a conservative force field, bistability stems from the fact that the potential energy has two local minima, which are the stable equilibrium points. These rest states need not have equal potential energy. By mathematical arguments, a local maximum, an unstable equilibrium point, must lie between the two minima. At rest, a particle will be in one of the minimum equilibrium positions, because that corresponds to the state of lowest energy. The maximum can be visualized as a barrier between them.

A system can transition from one state of minimal energy to the other if it is given enough activation energy to penetrate the barrier (compare activation energy and Arrhenius equation for the chemical case). After the barrier has been reached, assuming the system has damping, it will relax into the other minimum state in a time called the relaxation time.

Bistability is widely used in digital electronics devices to store binary data. It is the essential characteristic of the flip-flop, a circuit which is a fundamental building block of computers and some types of semiconductor memory. A bistable device can store one bit of binary data, with one state representing a "0" and the other state a "1". It is also used in relaxation oscillators, multivibrators, and the Schmitt trigger. Optical bistability is an attribute of certain optical devices where two resonant transmissions states are possible and stable, dependent on the input. Bistability can also arise in biochemical systems, where it creates digital, switch-like outputs from the constituent chemical concentrations and activities. It is often associated with hysteresis in such systems.

Mathematical modelling
In the mathematical language of dynamic systems analysis, one of the simplest bistable systems is

\frac{dy}{dt} = y (1-y^2). $$

This system describes a ball rolling down a curve with shape $$\frac{y^4}{4} - \frac{y^2}{2}$$, and has three equilibrium points: $$ y = 1 $$, $$ y = 0 $$, and $$ y = -1$$. The middle point $$y=0$$ is marginally stable ($$ y = 0 $$ is stable but $$ y \approx 0 $$ will not converge to $$ y = 0 $$), while the other two points are stable. The direction of change of $$y(t)$$ over time depends on the initial condition $$y(0)$$. If the initial condition is positive ($$y(0)>0$$), then the solution $$y(t)$$ approaches 1 over time, but if the initial condition is negative ($$y(0)< 0$$), then $$y(t)$$ approaches −1 over time. Thus, the dynamics are "bistable". The final state of the system can be either $$ y = 1 $$ or $$ y = -1 $$, depending on the initial conditions.

The appearance of a bistable region can be understood for the model system $$ \frac{dy}{dt} = y (r-y^2) $$ which undergoes a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation with bifurcation parameter $$ r $$.

In biological and chemical systems

Bistability is key for understanding basic phenomena of cellular functioning, such as decision-making processes in cell cycle progression, cellular differentiation, and apoptosis. It is also involved in loss of cellular homeostasis associated with early events in cancer onset and in prion diseases as well as in the origin of new species (speciation).

Bistability can be generated by a positive feedback loop with an ultrasensitive regulatory step. Positive feedback loops, such as the simple X activates Y and Y activates X motif, essentially link output signals to their input signals and have been noted to be an important regulatory motif in cellular signal transduction because positive feedback loops can create switches with an all-or-nothing decision. Studies have shown that numerous biological systems, such as Xenopus oocyte maturation, mammalian calcium signal transduction, and polarity in budding yeast, incorporate multiple positive feedback loops with different time scales (slow and fast). Having multiple linked positive feedback loops with different time scales ("dual-time switches") allows for (a) increased regulation: two switches that have independent changeable activation and deactivation times; and (b) noise filtering.

Bistability can also arise in a biochemical system only for a particular range of parameter values, where the parameter can often be interpreted as the strength of the feedback. In several typical examples, the system has only one stable fixed point at low values of the parameter. A saddle-node bifurcation gives rise to a pair of new fixed points emerging, one stable and the other unstable, at a critical value of the parameter. The unstable solution can then form another saddle-node bifurcation with the initial stable solution at a higher value of the parameter, leaving only the higher fixed solution. Thus, at values of the parameter between the two critical values, the system has two stable solutions. An example of a dynamical system that demonstrates similar features is

\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}t} = r + \frac{x^5}{1+x^5} - x $$

where $$x$$ is the output, and $$r$$ is the parameter, acting as the input.

Bistability can be modified to be more robust and to tolerate significant changes in concentrations of reactants, while still maintaining its "switch-like" character. Feedback on both the activator of a system and inhibitor make the system able to tolerate a wide range of concentrations. An example of this in cell biology is that activated CDK1 (Cyclin Dependent Kinase 1) activates its activator Cdc25 while at the same time inactivating its inactivator, Wee1, thus allowing for progression of a cell into mitosis. Without this double feedback, the system would still be bistable, but would not be able to tolerate such a wide range of concentrations.

Bistability has also been described in the embryonic development of Drosophila melanogaster (the fruit fly). Examples are anterior-posterior and dorso-ventral axis formation and eye development.

A prime example of bistability in biological systems is that of Sonic hedgehog (Shh), a secreted signaling molecule, which plays a critical role in development. Shh functions in diverse processes in development, including patterning limb bud tissue differentiation. The Shh signaling network behaves as a bistable switch, allowing the cell to abruptly switch states at precise Shh concentrations. gli1 and gli2 transcription is activated by Shh, and their gene products act as transcriptional activators for their own expression and for targets downstream of Shh signaling. Simultaneously, the Shh signaling network is controlled by a negative feedback loop wherein the Gli transcription factors activate the enhanced transcription of a repressor (Ptc). This signaling network illustrates the simultaneous positive and negative feedback loops whose exquisite sensitivity helps create a bistable switch.

Bistability can only arise in biological and chemical systems if three necessary conditions are fulfilled: positive feedback, a mechanism to filter out small stimuli and a mechanism to prevent increase without bound.

Bistable chemical systems have been studied extensively to analyze relaxation kinetics, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, stochastic resonance, as well as climate change. In bistable spatially extended systems the onset of local correlations and propagation of traveling waves have been analyzed.

Bistability is often accompanied by hysteresis. On a population level, if many realisations of a bistable system are considered (e.g. many bistable cells (speciation) ), one typically observes bimodal distributions. In an ensemble average over the population, the result may simply look like a smooth transition, thus showing the value of single-cell resolution.

A specific type of instability is known as modehopping, which is bi-stability in the frequency space. Here trajectories can shoot between two stable limit cycles, and thus show similar characteristics as normal bi-stability when measured inside a Poincare section.

In mechanical systems

Bistability as applied in the design of mechanical systems is more commonly said to be "over centre"—that is, work is done on the system to move it just past the peak, at which point the mechanism goes "over centre" to its secondary stable position. The result is a toggle-type action- work applied to the system below a threshold sufficient to send it 'over center' results in no change to the mechanism's state.

Springs are a common method of achieving an "over centre" action. A spring attached to a simple two position ratchet-type mechanism can create a button or plunger that is clicked or toggled between two mechanical states. Many ballpoint and rollerball retractable pens employ this type of bistable mechanism.

An even more common example of an over-center device is an ordinary electric wall switch. These switches are often designed to snap firmly into the "on" or "off" position once the toggle handle has been moved a certain distance past the center-point.

A ratchet-and-pawl is an elaboration—a multi-stable "over center" system used to create irreversible motion. The pawl goes over center as it is turned in the forward direction. In this case, "over center" refers to the ratchet being stable and "locked" in a given position until clicked forward again; it has nothing to do with the ratchet being unable to turn in the reverse direction.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Bistability


text:
Bjørn Lomborg

Bjørn Lomborg (born 6 January 1965) is a Danish author and the president of the think tank Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is the former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen. He became internationally known for his best-selling book The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001).

This book's claim that many environmental issues are overstated was criticized by the scientific community and brought Lomborg popular media attention. In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus. In 2004, he was listed as one of Time's 100 most influential people.

In his subsequent book, Cool It (2007), and its film adaptation, Lomborg outlined his views on global warming, many of which contradict the scientific consensus on climate change. These views include the claim that the negative impacts are overstated and the opinion that too much emphasis is put on climate change mitigation at the expense of climate change adaptation. Lomborg agrees that global warming is real and man-made and will have a serious impact but enumerates other disagreements with the scientific consensus. In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".

Lomborg's views and work have attracted scrutiny from the scientific community. The majority of scientists reacted negatively to The Skeptical Environmentalist, and he was formally accused of scientific misconduct over the book; the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded in an evaluation of the book that "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited." His positions on climate change have been challenged by experts and characterized as cherry picking.

Education
Lomborg was an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in political science at the Aarhus University in 1991, and a PhD degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.

Career
Lomborg lectured in statistics in the Department of Political Science at the Aarhus University as an assistant professor (1994–1996) and associate professor (1997–2005). He left the university in February 2005 and in May of that year became an adjunct professor in Policy-making, Scientific Knowledge and the Role of Experts at the Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School.

Early in his career, his professional areas of interest lay in the simulation of strategies in collective action dilemmas, simulation of party behavior in proportional voting systems, and the use of surveys in public administration. In 1996, Lomborg's paper, "Nucleus and Shield: Evolution of Social Structure in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma", was published in the academic journal American Sociological Review.

Later, Lomborg's interests shifted to the use of statistics in the environmental arena. In 1998, Lomborg published four essays about the state of the environment in the leading Danish newspaper Politiken, which according to him "resulted in a firestorm debate spanning over 400 articles in major metropolitan newspapers." This led to the Skeptical Environmentalist, whose English translation was published as a work in environmental economics by Cambridge University Press in 2001. The book brought him international prominence as an opponent of the scientific consensus on climate change. He later edited Global Crises, Global Solutions, which presented the first conclusions of the Copenhagen Consensus, published in 2004 by the Cambridge University Press. In 2007, he authored a book entitled Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming. In March 2002, the newly elected center-right prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, appointed Lomborg to run Denmark's new Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI). On 22 June 2004, Lomborg announced his decision to resign from this post to go back to the Aarhus University, saying his work at the Institute was done and that he could better serve the public debate from the academic sector. As of 2020, Lomborg is a visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank. In 2023 he was a mainstage speaker at the inaugural Alliance for Responsible Citizenship.

The Skeptical Environmentalist
In 2001, he attained significant attention by publishing The Skeptical Environmentalist, a controversial book whose main thesis is that many of the most-publicized claims and predictions on environmental issues are wrong. The book received negative reviews among the scientific community, including from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature and Scientific American, with many scientists criticising its assertions as poorly supported, selectively using data and misrepresenting sources. However, it was well received in popular media and brought Lomborg to international attention.

Formal accusations of scientific dishonesty
After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was formally accused of scientific dishonesty by a group of environmental scientists, who brought a total of three complaints against him to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI). Lomborg was asked whether he regarded the book as a "debate" publication, and thereby not under the purview of the DCSD, or as a scientific work; he chose the latter, clearing the way for the inquiry that followed. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.

In January 2003, the DCSD released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question. That February, Lomborg filed a complaint against the decision with the MSTI, which had oversight over the DCSD. In December, 2003, the Ministry annulled the DCSD decision, citing procedural errors, including lack of documentation of errors in the book, and asked the DCSD to re-examine the case. In March 2004, the DCSD formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion.

The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition signed by 287 Danish academics, primarily social scientists, who criticized the DCSD for evaluating the book as a work of science, whereas the petitioners considered it clearly an opinion piece by a non-scientist. The Danish Minister of Science, Technology, and Innovation then asked the Danish Research Agency (DRA) to form an independent working group to review DCSD practices. In response to this, another group of Danish scientists collected over 600 signatures, primarily from the medical and natural sciences community, to support the continued existence of the DCSD and presented their petition to the DRA.

Cool It
Lomborg's follow-up to The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, was published in 2007. In it, Lomborg expanded on his views of climate change. Lomborg starts with the premise "Global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century." Lomborg argues at length that warming will result in reducing total deaths from extreme temperatures, due to warming in cold climates. The main theme is that then-current approaches for addressing climate change, such as the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, were not economically cost-effective.

The Lomborg Deception, a 2010 Yale University Press book by Howard Friel, analyzed the ways in which Lomborg has "selectively used (and sometimes distorted) the available evidence", and alleged that the sources Lomborg provided in the footnotes did not support and, in some cases directly contradicted, Lomborg's assertions in the text of the book. Lomborg denied those claims in a 27-page argument-by-argument response. Friel wrote a reply to that response, in which he admitted two errors but otherwise rejected Lomborg's arguments.

Documentary film
Bjørn Lomborg was the subject of documentary feature film Cool It, adapted from his book of the same name. It was released on 12 November 2010 in the US. The film in part explicitly challenged Al Gore's 2006 Oscar-winning environmental awareness documentary, An Inconvenient Truth." The film received a media critic collective rating of 51% from Rotten Tomatoes and 61% from Metacritic.

Copenhagen Consensus
Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus in 2002, which seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics. A panel of prominent economists was assembled to evaluate and rank a series of problems every four years. The project was funded largely by the Danish government and was co-sponsored by The Economist. A book summarizing the conclusions of the economists' first assessment, Global Crises, Global Solutions, edited by Lomborg, was published in October 2004 by Cambridge University Press.

In 2006, Lomborg became director of the newly established Copenhagen Consensus Center, a Danish government-funded institute intended to build on the mandate of the EAI, and expand on the original Copenhagen Consensus conference. Denmark withdrew its funding in 2012 and the Center faced imminent closure. Lomborg left the country and reconstituted the Center as a non-profit organization in the United States. The Center was based out of a "Neighborhood Parcel Shipping Center" in Lowell, Massachusetts, though Lomborg himself was based in Prague in the Czech Republic. In 2015, Lomborg described the center's funding as "a little more than $1m a year ... from private donations", of which Lomborg himself was paid $775,000 in 2012.

Australian Consensus Centre
In 2014, the Australian Government offered the University of Western Australia $4 million to establish a "consensus centre", with Lomborg as director. The university accepted the offer, setting off a firestorm of opposition from its faculty and students, and from climate scientists around the world. In April 2015, the university reversed the decision and rejected the offer. The government continued to seek a sponsor for the proposed institution. On 21 October 2015, the offered funding was withdrawn. In April 2015, it was announced that an alliance between the Copenhagen Consensus Center and the University of Western Australia would see the establishment of the Australian Consensus Centre, a new policy research center at the UWA Business School. The University described the Center's goals as a "focus on applying an economic lens to proposals to achieve good for Australia, the region and the world, prioritizing those initiatives which produce the most social value per dollar spent.". This appointment came under intense scrutiny, particularly when leaked documents revealed that the Australian government had approached UWA and offered to fund the Consensus Centre, information subsequently confirmed by a senior UWA lecturer. Reports indicated that Prime Minister Tony Abbott's office was directly responsible for Lomborg's elevation. $4 million of the total funding for the Center was to be provided by the Australian federal government, with UWA not contributing any funding for the centre.

On 8 May 2015, UWA cancelled the contract for hosting the Australian Consensus Centre as "the proposed centre was untenable and lacked academic support". The Australian federal education minister, Christopher Pyne, said that he would find another university to host the ACC.

In July 2015, Flinders University senior management began quietly canvassing its staff about a plan to host the renamed Lomborg Consensus Centre at the University, likely in the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences. A week later the story was broken on Twitter by the NTEU (National Tertiary Education Union) and Scott Ludlam. The story appeared the next day in The Australian, but described as "academic conversations" with no mention of Bjorn Lomborg's involvement and portrayed as a grassroots desire for the Centre by the University. The following week, a story appeared in The Guardian quoting two Flinders University academics and an internal document demonstrating staff's withering rejection of the idea. Flinders staff and students vowed to fight against the establishment of any Centre or any partnership with Lomborg, citing his lack of scientific credibility, his lack of academic legitimacy and the political nature of the process of establishing the Centre with the Abbott federal government. The Australian Youth Climate Coalition and 350.org launched a national campaign to support staff and students in their rejection of Lomborg.

On 21 October 2015, education minister Simon Birmingham told a senate committee the offered funding had been withdrawn. It was subsequently unclear whether the Australian Government would honour its original commitment and transfer the funds directly to the Centre to cover the costs incurred.

Views on climate change
Lomborg has set out his views on climate change in several books, articles, interviews, and opinion pieces. Lomborg believes that climate change is occurring and humans are responsible, but disputes that the effects and economic impacts will be negative. He argues that finances should be spent elsewhere, rather than on mitigation. He does not support solar panels, saying they are "inefficient", which is "why you have to subsidise them", despite fossil fuels also being subsidized. According to Reuters, "many nations, especially in the developing world where food and water supplies are most vulnerable to climate shifts projected by the U.N. panel of climate scientists, reject Lomborg’s views" that investment into technology is an adequate response to climate change. He has opposed the Kyoto Protocol and called the Paris Agreement a "charade". He has been accused of exaggerating the economic costs of climate change mitigation policies.

Several of Lomborg's articles, in newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Telegraph, have been checked by Climate Feedback, a worldwide network of scientists who assess the credibility of influential climate change media coverage. The Climate Feedback reviewers assessed that the scientific credibility of the articles ranged between "low" and "very low". The Climate Feedback reviewers came to the conclusion that in one case, Lomborg "practices cherry picking"; in a second case, he "had reached his conclusions through cherry-picking from a small subset of the evidence, misrepresenting the results of existing studies, and relying on flawed reasoning"; in a third case, "[his] article [is in] blatant disagreement with available scientific evidence, while the author does not offer adequate evidence to support his statements"; and in a fourth case, "The author, Bjorn Lomborg, cherry-picks this specific piece of research and uses it in support of a broad argument against the value of climate policy. He also misrepresents the Paris Agreement to downplay its potential to curb future climate change."

Personal life
Lomborg is gay and a vegetarian. As a public figure he has been a participant in information campaigns in Denmark about homosexuality, and states that "Being a public gay is to my view a civic responsibility. It's important to show that the width of the gay world cannot be described by a tired stereotype, but goes from leather gays on parade-wagons to suit-and-tie yuppies on the direction floor, as well as everything in between".

Recognition and awards

 * The Global Leaders of Tomorrow (Class 2002) – World Economic Forum (2002)
 * The Stars of Europe (category: Agenda Setters) – BusinessWeek (17 June 2002): "No matter what they think of his views, nobody denies that Bjorn Lomborg has shaken the environmental movement to its core."
 * The 2004 Time 100 (in Scientists & Thinkers) – Time (26 April 2004): "Our list of the most influential people in the world today: He just might be the Martin Luther of the environmental movement."
 * Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll (#14) Foreign Policy and Prospect (2005)
 * Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll (#41) Foreign Policy and Prospect (2008)
 * 50 people who could save the planet – The Guardian (5 January 2008)
 * Glocal Hero Award – Transatlantyk – Poznań International Film and Music Festival (2011)
 * FP Top 100 Global Thinkers – Foreign Policy (2012): "For taking the black and white out of climate politics"

Discussions in the media
After the release of The Skeptical Environmentalist in 2001, Lomborg was subjected to intense scrutiny and criticism in the media. As in the scientific community, his scientific qualifications and integrity were criticized, although some popular media outlets supported him. The verdict of the Danish Committees for Scientific Dishonesty fueled this debate and brought it into the spotlight of international mass media. By the end of 2003 Lomborg had become an international celebrity, with frequent appearances on radio, television and print media around the world. He is also a regular contributor to Project Syndicate since 2005.
 * Scientific American published criticism of Lomborg's book. Lomborg responded on his own website, quoting the article at such length that Scientific American threatened to sue for copyright infringement. Lomborg eventually removed the rebuttal from his website; it was later published in PDF format on Scientific American's site. The magazine also printed a response to the rebuttal.
 * The Economist defended Lomborg, claiming the panel of experts that had criticized Lomborg in Scientific American was both biased and did not actually counter Lomborg's book. The Economist argued that the panel's opinion had come under no scrutiny at all, and that Lomborg's responses had not been reported.
 * Penn & Teller: Bullshit! — the U.S. Showtime television programme featured an episode entitled "Environmental Hysteria" in which Lomborg criticized what he claimed was environmentalists' refusal to accept a cost–benefit analysis of environmental questions, and stressed the need to prioritise some issues above others.
 * Rolling Stone stated, "Lomborg pulls off the remarkable feat of welding the techno-optimism of the Internet age with a lefty's concern for the fate of the planet."
 * The Union of Concerned Scientists criticized The Skeptical Environmentalist, claiming it to be "seriously flawed and failing to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis", accusing Lomborg of presenting data in a fraudulent way, using flawed logic and selectively citing non-peer-reviewed literature. The review was conducted by Peter Gleick, Jerry D. Mahlman, Edward O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeff Harvey, and Stuart Pimm.
 * The New York Times criticized False Alarm, stating "This book proves the aphorism that a little knowledge is dangerous. It's nominally about air pollution. It's really about mind pollution." The review was conducted by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz.

Publications

 * "Nucleus and Shield: Evolution of Social Structure in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma", American Sociological Review, 1996.
 * Global Crises, Global Solutions, Copenhagen Consensus, Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN 0521606144, as editor
 * How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place, Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0521685719, as editor
 * Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems – Costs and Benefits, Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0521715973, as editor
 * Smart Solutions to Climate Change, Comparing Costs and Benefits, Cambridge University Press, 2010, ISBN 978-0521763424.
 * The Nobel Laureates Guide to the Smartest Targets for the World 2016–2030, Copenhagen Consensus Center, 2015. ISBN 978-1940003115
 * Prioritizing Development: A Cost Benefit Analysis of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals Cambridge University Press, 2018, ISBN 1108415458, as editor
 * Best Things First: The 12 Most Efficient Solutions for the World's Poorest and Our Global SDG Promises, Copenhagen Consensus Center, 2023. ISBN 978-1940003481
 * Prioritizing Development: A Cost Benefit Analysis of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals Cambridge University Press, 2018, ISBN 1108415458, as editor
 * Best Things First: The 12 Most Efficient Solutions for the World's Poorest and Our Global SDG Promises, Copenhagen Consensus Center, 2023. ISBN 978-1940003481
 * Best Things First: The 12 Most Efficient Solutions for the World's Poorest and Our Global SDG Promises, Copenhagen Consensus Center, 2023. ISBN 978-1940003481
 * Best Things First: The 12 Most Efficient Solutions for the World's Poorest and Our Global SDG Promises, Copenhagen Consensus Center, 2023. ISBN 978-1940003481

title: Bjørn Lomborg


text:
Talk:Bjørn Lomborg

Denialist
"Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus Center do not seem to deny that climate change is happening or man-made, but discuss the economics of the remedies." This is bullshit. Climate change denial does not just mean "deny that climate change is happening or man-made". There are other flavors, and Lomborg has some of them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Well boohoo, Thanks for the link to that attack page, I'll be editing it. So what is your personal definition of climate change denialism, other than wp:i don't like it? Greglocock (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal about it. That page is based on reliable sources, and if you try to inject anti-science denialist POV into it, you will fail. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think “climate change mitigation obstructionist” or something of the like would be the most appropriate way to describe him - although this is a bit too much of a mouthful. While Lomborg no longer denies the existence of climate change, it would appear he has spent much of his career as a professional apologist for those who oppose any kind of radical action to mitigate it. Ottawajin (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources. Unless they start calling him that, we cannot start calling him that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No longer? For at least 25 years he's agreed anthropogenic climate change is a thing. First edition of TSE 1998. Greglocock (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I drink a lot but here are a bunch of reasons not to deal with it is in denial. I agree the climate is warming but... isn't a get-out-of-denial-free card. Lomborg is very much in denial. -- M.boli (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * he's agreed anthropogenic climate change is a thing A tiny, non-threatening thing we can safely ignore. Which it is not. As I said above, There are other flavors, and Lomborg has some of them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, he just doesn't think it is a high priority and that adaptation can cope with the short term effects. I was specifically laughing at the 'no longer' phrase. Do you have ANY evidence he has ever claimed it didn't exist? I expect not, in which case 'no longer' is a complete falsehood. Greglocock (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A climate change denier is somebody who is in denial about the problem of climate change. Doesn't think it is a high priority and adaptation can cope with the short term effects is denialism. M.boli (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse? Yes, I realise the Chicken Littles have redefined the word denial, the point I have been making is that the phrase 'no longer' is absurd. He has acknowledged AGW for at least 25 years, and as I've said if you can't find a RS in which he claims otherwise then 'no longer' is laughable. Greglocock (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Using the phrase "Chicken Littles" for people who represent the scientific consensus is telling. Not that it needed telling anymore.
 * We have the science on one side, and we have Lomborg, you, and others on the other side. Wikipedia follows the science.
 * The words "no longer" are not in the article, and nobody wants to put them there. One user wrote them here. It is pointless to complain about them to other users who did not, or to demand evidence for them from other users who did not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good, point settled. "No longer" is weasel words. And boring hint consensus !=science. it's politicsGreglocock (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * consensus !=science. it's politics That is just a denialist talking point, not reality. The denialist, non-consensus position is the only political one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"Warmist"
A drunk who insists their drinking isn't causing problems, and besides a little alcohol is good for you, and there are better things to think about, and maybe next year, is in denial.

Lomborg has devoted much of his professional career to saying a little warming is good for you, and the world could better focus its attention elsewhere, and it isn't causing so much problem, and maybe in a few years we can do something.

It is the same way a person can admit to drinking a lot of alcohol and deny there is a problem. We wouldn't call called them an "alcoholist" or say they are "skeptical." Lomborg is a denier. -- M.boli (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

 * What do you call the alcoholic who comes up with a more complicated and drastic program every year to stop his drinking? And every year when he presents his new plan he admits that his drinking is a little bit worse, but his plan is better? And in the meantime ignores his cancer and his domestic abuse issue and his inability to pay his mortgage? --2607:FEA8:FF01:4E54:3DBD:5499:8EC2:B712 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Clarification Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
The link in footnote [9] is dead, but it remains archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20150316130136/http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1343527.

I'm adding the full quote: "one couldn't prove that Lomborg had deliberately been scientifically dishonest, although he had broken the rules of scientific practice in that he interpreted results beyond the conclusions of the authors he cited", because I think it is more nuanced than "it misrepresented scientific facts." Pushback welcome, particularly because it might be too long for the header section.

Aristotles (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 * The report from the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty is available on the web: https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DishonestDane.pdf. It does not contain what you quoted. In sum: by the standards of science, the book is dishonest. But Lomborg doesn't do science in those areas, and the book isn't science, so they can't prove he intended to commit fraud. They sum it up nicely here:

"Subject to the proviso that the book is to be evaluated as science, there has been such perversion of the scientific message in the form of systematically biased representation that the objective criteria for upholding scientific dishonesty-cf. Danish Order No. 533 of 15 December 1998-have been met. In consideration of the extraordinarily wide-ranging scientific topics dealt with by the defendant without having any special scientific expertise, however, DCSD has not found-or felt able to procure-sufficient grounds to deem that the defendant has misled his readers deliberately or with gross negligence."
 * That quote immediately precedes the ruling, which says the same thing. I propose to replace the quote in the article with this one or the ruling. Both versions contain some clear language and some confusing language. -- M.boli (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I worry that I don't see a date and a bunch of signatures in that pdf. How can one be sure it's the official government product, not a draft? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The money quote (as it were), the first sentence in the blockquote above, is also quoted in a contemporaneous article in The Guardian.
 * But I agree finding the report itself would be good. I went looking for it on the agency web site, which has been renamed. The web site didn't seem to have case reports going back that far. It did have annual reports from 2002 and 2003. The 2002 annual report mentions the controversy and says the case report was issued in early 2003, which is consistent with the date on the Guardian article. But the 2003 annual report drops the matter. Some digging is needed. -- M.boli (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleting reference to "Business Insider"

 * Since the article is tagged as needing tertiary sources, please don't delete this tertiary source. Also, since the next paragraph starts critiquing Lomborg, I think it is important to maintain the third-party reference to "Business Insider", which confirms that Lomborg is a global player in the area of climate controversies. I would ask you to revert the deletion. --Melchior2006 (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence was added on 24 April 2015 by Tsavage, changed on 8 January 2023 by Espoo, removed on 28 May 2023 by PhotographyEdits with edit summary = "Seems a bit undue weight, feel free to discuss on talk". The cited article is by Joe Weisenthal. To me it seems a bit due weight, though I would advocate revert of Espoo's edit per WP:CLAIM. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 * My view coincides with Melchior2006 and Peter Gulutzan, including the latter's preference for the original version--"In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".--which I consider more straightforward, succinct and neutral. It provides global context to Lomborg's positioning in the overall public climate change debate. I suggest reverting to the original version. Tsavage (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Sure, feel free to revert it. I was a bit too WP:BOLD I guess :) PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedic/Informational Tone
I should bring this here to avoid an edit war: I had removed "incorrectly" under "Views on Climate Change" and suggested that any reversion at least offer a source, and be more professional and academic in tone. Someone provided a source, which is appreciated, but added "but he was wrong," which sounds even more polemical, and frankly immature. I reviewed the source and summarized its assertions, but now it has been reverted back to "but he was wrong." Surely there's a more thoughtful and careful way to express whatever it is that needs to be expressed here. Jmaranvi (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not a question of tone but of accuracy. We cannot omit that fact or camouflage it behind misleading language.
 * The goal of denialists (like Lomborg) is to generate the impression in the general public that what they say is somehow on the same level as real science, but Wikipedia cannot help them in that dishonest endeavor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that accuracy is foremost. That's why I think that the article should reflect what the sources say. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to make stronger claims, find reliable sources that make those claims. Treating the subject of the article as an enemy to be defeated seems like WP:RGW, noble as the pursuit may be. Jmaranvi (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Arcahaeoindris added "incorrectly" on on 17 September 2022. 2604:ca00:11b:99b3::668:20cd removed it on 5 June 2023. Hob Gadling re-inserted it on 6 June 2023. Jmaranvi re-removed it on 1 August 2023.M.boli inserted "but he was wrong" 1 August 2023. Jmaranvi changed to "others have noted that this claim is speculative, and unlikely to hold true, given historical trends" on 1 August 2023. Hob Gadling changed back to "but he was wrong" on 2 August 2023. I believe that WP:BLPRESTORE wording -- "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." -- is relevant since Hob Gadling's re-insertion included the same word and M.Boli's change was to something not significantly different. I also regard the citing of the changed words to Caitlyn Kennedy's post which predicts "Over the coming century, human-caused warming will continue, with natural variability periodically speeding up or slowing down the pace from decade to decade." is not proof that Mr Lomborg's prediction is wrong, and it doesn't specifically mention Mr Lomborg's prediction which according to a Guardian blogger was "It does probably indicate that the high temperature increases  - the very scary scenarios that get banded around - are much less likely simply because they are not nearly as likely to compare with the findings of the models compared to reality." In that case WP:SYNTH applies. I conclude that Jmaranvi acted correctly. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to delete Lomborg's prediction entirely. He has written extensively his views on global warming. This is one murky almost off-hand remark. It was specifically referring to a particular "pause", the reference I added is public outreach from NOAA saying the pause on question didn't slow the rate of global warming. So I think it isn't very synthetic, I think it's use to contextualize lomborg is ok. But there is zero reason for Lomborg's prediction to be here. -- M.boli M.boli (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (I just noticed the continuation of this thread in August.) There were just two honest options here: include his false prediction and add that it is false, or not include it. Both are consistent with WP:FRINGE. Including the claim without adding that it was false would have been dishonest as well as inconsistent with WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bjørn Lomborg


text:
Banda Islands

The Banda Islands (Kepulauan Banda) are a volcanic group of ten small volcanic islands in the Banda Sea, about 140 km south of Seram Island and about 2000 km east of Java, and constitute an administrative district (kecamatan) within the Central Maluku Regency in the Indonesian province of Maluku. The islands rise out of 4 to 6 km deep ocean and have a total land area of approximately 172 km2. They had a population of 18,544 at the 2010 Census and 20,924 at the 2020 Census; the official estimate as of mid-2023 was 21,902. Until the mid-19th century the Banda Islands were the world's only source of the spices nutmeg and mace, produced from the nutmeg tree. The islands are also popular destinations for scuba diving and snorkeling. The main town and administrative centre is Banda Neira, located on the island of the same name.

Pre-European history
The first documented human presence in the Banda Islands comes from a rock shelter site on Pulau Ay that was in use at least 8,000 years ago.

The earliest mention of the Banda Islands is found in Chinese records dating as far back as 200 BCE though there is speculation that it is mentioned in earlier Indian sources. The Srivijaya Kingdom had extensive trade contacts with the Banda Islands. Also during this period (from the late 13th century and onwards) Islam arrived in the region. It soon became established in the area.

Before the arrival of Europeans, Banda had an oligarchic form of government led by orang kaya ('rich men') and the Bandanese had an active and independent role in trade throughout the archipelago. Banda was the world's only source of nutmeg and mace, spices used as flavourings, medicines, and preserving agents that were at the time highly valued in European markets. They were sold by Arab traders to the Venetians for exorbitant prices. The traders did not divulge the exact location of their source and no European was able to deduce their location.

The first written accounts of Banda are in Suma Oriental, a book written by the Portuguese apothecary Tomé Pires who was based in Malacca from 1512 to 1515 but visited Banda several times. On his first visit, he interviewed the Portuguese and the far more knowledgeable Malay sailors in Malacca. He estimated the early sixteenth century population to be 2500–3000. He reported the Bandanese as being part of an Indonesia-wide trading network and the only native Malukan long-range traders taking cargo to Malacca, although shipments from Banda were also being made by Javanese traders.

In addition to the production of nutmeg and mace, Banda maintained significant entrepôt trade; goods that moved through Banda included cloves from Ternate and Tidore in the north, bird-of-paradise feathers from the Aru Islands and Western New Guinea, and massoi bark for traditional medicines and salves. In exchange, Banda predominantly received rice and cloth; namely light cotton batik from Java, calicoes from India and ikat from the Lesser Sundas. In 1603, an average quality sarong-sized cloth traded for eighteen kilograms of nutmeg. Some of these textiles were then sold on, ending up in Halmahera and New Guinea. Coarser ikat from the Lesser Sundas was traded for sago from the Kei Islands, Aru and Seram.

Portuguese
In August 1511, on behalf of the king of Portugal, Afonso de Albuquerque conquered Malacca, which at the time was a major hub of Asian trade. In November of that year, after having secured Malacca and learned of the Banda Islands' location, Albuquerque sent an expedition of three ships led by his good friend António de Abreu to find them. Malay pilots, either recruited or forcibly conscripted, guided them via Java, the Lesser Sundas and Ambon to Banda, arriving in early 1512. The first Europeans to reach the Banda Islands, the expedition remained in Banda for about one month, purchasing and filling their ships with Banda's nutmeg, mace, and cloves, in which Banda had a thriving entrepôt trade. D'Abreu sailed through Ambon and Seram while his second in command Francisco Serrão went ahead towards the Maluku islands, was shipwrecked and ended up in Ternate.

Distracted by hostilities elsewhere in the archipelago, such as Ambon and Ternate, the Portuguese did not return to the Banda Islands until 1529, when Portuguese trader Captain Garcia Henriques landed troops. Five of the Banda islands were within gunshot of each other and Henriques realised that a fort on the main island Neira would give him full control of the group. The Bandanese were, however, hostile to such a plan, and their warlike behavior was both costly and tiresome to Garcia whose men were attacked when they attempted to build a fort. From then on, the Portuguese were infrequent visitors to the islands, preferring to buy their nutmeg from traders in Malacca.

Unlike inhabitants of other eastern Indonesian islands visited by the Portuguese, such as Ambon, Solor, Ternate and Morotai, the Bandanese displayed no enthusiasm for Christianity or the Europeans who brought it in the sixteenth century, and no serious attempt was made to Christianise the Bandanese. Maintaining their independence, the Bandanese never allowed the Portuguese to build a fort or permanent post in the islands. Ironically, it was this lack of presence which attracted the Dutch to trade in Banda instead of the clove-producing islands of Ternate and Tidore.

Dutch control

The Dutch followed the Portuguese to Banda but were to have a much more dominating and lasting presence. Dutch–Bandanese relations were mutually resentful from the outset, with Holland's first merchants complaining of Bandanese reneging on agreed deliveries and price, and cheating on quantity and quality. For the Bandanese, on the other hand, although they welcomed another competitor purchaser for their spices, the items of trade offered by the Dutch—heavy woolens, and damasks, unwanted manufactured goods, for example—were usually unsuitable in comparison to traditional trade products. The Javanese, Arab and Indian, and Portuguese traders for example brought indispensable items along with steel knives, copper, medicines, and prized Chinese porcelain.

As much as the Dutch disliked dealing with the Bandanese, the trade was a highly profitable one with spices selling for 300 times the purchase price in Banda. This amply justified the expense and risk in shipping them to Europe. The allure of such profits saw an increasing number of Dutch expeditions; it was soon seen that in trade with the East Indies, competition from each would eat into all their profits. Thus the competitors united to form the Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) (the United East India Company, referred to in English as the Dutch East India Company) in 1602.

Until the early seventeenth century the Bandas were ruled by a group of leading citizens, the orang kaya (literally 'rich men'); each of these was head of a district. At the time nutmeg was one of the "fine spices" kept expensive in Europe by disciplined manipulation of the market, but a desirable commodity for Dutch traders in the ports of India as well; economic historian Fernand Braudel notes that India consumed twice as much as Europe. A number of Banda's orang kaya were persuaded by the Dutch to sign a treaty granting the Dutch a monopoly on spice purchases. Even though the Bandanese had little understanding of the significance of the treaty known as 'The Eternal Compact', or that not all Bandanese leaders had signed, it would later be used to justify Dutch troops being brought in to defend their monopoly.

In April 1609, Admiral Pieter Willemsz. Verhoeff arrived at Banda Neira with a request by Maurice, Prince of Orange to build a fort on the island (the eventual Fort Nassau). The Bandanese were not excited about this idea. On 22 May, before building of the fort had started, the orang kaya called a meeting with the Dutch admiral, purportedly to negotiate prices. Instead, they led Verhoeff and two high-ranked men into an ambush and decapitated them and subsequently killed 46 of the Dutch visitors. Jan Pietersz Coen, who was a lower-ranked merchant on the expedition, managed to escape, but the traumatic event likely influenced his future attitude towards the Bandanese.

English–Dutch rivalry
While Portuguese and Spanish activity in the region had weakened, the English had built fortified trading posts on tiny Ai and Run islands, ten to twenty kilometres from the main Banda Islands. With the English paying higher prices, they were significantly undermining Dutch aims for a monopoly. As Anglo-Dutch tensions increased in 1611 the Dutch built the larger and more strategic Fort Belgica above Fort Nassau.

In 1615, the Dutch invaded Ai with 900 men, whereupon the English retreated to Run where they regrouped. Japanese mercenaries served in the Dutch forces. That same night, the English launched a surprise counter-attack on Ai, retaking the island and killing 200 Dutchmen. A year later, a much stronger Dutch force attacked Ai. This time the defenders were able to hold off the attack with cannon fire, but after a month of siege they ran out of ammunition. The Dutch killed the defenders, and afterwards strengthened the fort, renaming it 'Fort Revenge'.

Massacre of the Bandanese
Newly appointed VOC governor-general Jan Pieterszoon Coen set about enforcing Dutch monopoly over the Banda's spice trade. In 1621 well-armed soldiers were landed on Bandaneira Island and within a few days they had also occupied neighbouring and larger Lontar. The orang kaya were forced at gunpoint to sign an unfeasibly arduous treaty, one that was in fact impossible to keep, thus providing Coen an excuse to use superior Dutch force against the Bandanese. The Dutch quickly noted a number of alleged violations of the new treaty, in response to which Coen launched a punitive massacre. Japanese mercenaries were hired to deal with the orang kaya, forty of whom were beheaded with their heads impaled and displayed on bamboo spears. The butchering and beheadings were carried out by the Japanese for the Dutch.

The islanders were tortured and their villages destroyed by the Dutch. The Bandanese chiefs were also tortured by the Dutch and Japanese.

The Dutch carved 68 parcels out of the islands after the enslavement and slaughter of the natives.

The population of the Banda Islands prior to Dutch conquest is generally estimated to have been around 13,000–15,000 people, some of whom were Malay and Javanese traders, as well as Chinese and Arabs. The actual numbers of Bandanese who were killed, forcibly expelled or fled the islands in 1621 remain uncertain. But readings of historical sources suggest around one thousand Bandanese likely survived in the islands, and were spread throughout the nutmeg groves as forced labourers. The Dutch subsequently re-settled the islands with imported slaves, convicts and indentured labourers (to work the nutmeg plantations), as well as immigrants from elsewhere in Indonesia. Most survivors fled as refugees to the islands of their trading partners, in particular Keffing and Guli Guli in the Seram Laut chain and Kei Besar. Shipments of surviving Bandanese were also sent to Batavia (Jakarta) to work as slaves in developing the city and its fortress. Some 530 of these individuals were later returned to the islands because of their much-needed expertise in nutmeg cultivation (something sorely lacking among newly arrived Dutch settlers).

Whereas up until this point the Dutch presence had been simply as traders, that was sometimes treaty-based, the Banda conquest marked the start of the first overt colonial rule in Indonesia, albeit under the auspices of the VOC.

VOC monopoly

Having nearly eradicated the islands' native population, Coen divided the productive land of approximately half a million nutmeg trees into sixty-eight 1.2-hectare perken. These land parcels were then handed to Dutch planters known as perkeniers of which 34 were on Lontar, 31 on Ai and 3 on Neira. With few Bandanese left to work them, slaves from elsewhere were brought in. Now enjoying control of the nutmeg production, the VOC paid the perkeniers $1/122$nd of the Dutch market price for nutmeg; however, the perkeniers still profited immensely, building substantial villas with opulent imported European decorations.

The outlying island of Run was harder for the VOC to control and they exterminated all nutmeg trees there. The production and export of nutmeg was a VOC monopoly for almost two hundred years. Fort Belgica, one of many forts built by the Dutch East India Company, is one of the largest remaining European forts in Indonesia.

English–Dutch rivalry continues
Though not physically present at the Banda Islands, the English claimed the small island of Run until 1667 when, under the Treaty of Breda, the Dutch and English agreed to maintain the colonial status quo and relinquish their respective claims.

In 1810, the Kingdom of Holland was a vassal of Napoleonic France and hence in conflict with Britain. The French and British were each seeking to control lucrative Indian Ocean trade routes. On 10 May 1810, a squadron consisting of the 36-gun frigate HMS Caroline, HMS Piedmontaise (formerly a French frigate), 18-gun sloop HMS Barracouta (1807), and the 12-gun transport HMS Mandarin (1810) left Madras with money, supplies and troops to support the garrison at Amboyna, recently captured from the Dutch. The frigates and sloop carried a hundred officers and men of the Madras European Regiment, while the Mandarin carried supplies. The squadron was commanded by Captain Christopher Cole, with Captain Charles Foote on the Piedmontaise and Captain Richard Kenah aboard the Barracouta. After departing from Madras, Cole informed Foote and Kenah of Cole's plan to capture the Bandas; Foote and Kenah agreed. In Singapore, Captain Spencer informed Cole that over 700 regular Dutch troops may have been located in the Bandas.

The squadron took a circuitous route to avoid alerting the Dutch. On 9 August 1810, the British appeared at Banda Neira. They quickly stormed the island and attacked Belgica Castle at sunrise. The battle was over within hours, with the Dutch surrendering Fort Nassau – after some subterfuge – and within days the remainder of the Banda Islands. After the Dutch surrender, Captain Charles Foote (of the Piedmontaise) was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of the Banda Islands. This action was a prelude to Britain's invasion of Java in 1811.

Before the Dutch retook control of the islands, the British removed many nutmeg trees and transplanted them to Ceylon and other British colonies. The competition largely destroyed the value of the Banda Islands to the Dutch.

Recent history
In the late 1990s, violence between Christians and Muslims spilled over from intercommunal conflict in Ambon. The disturbance and resulting deaths damaged the previously prosperous tourism industry.

Geography
There are seven inhabited islands and several that are uninhabited. The inhabited islands are: Main group (formed from the drowned caldera of a former volcano):
 * Banda Neira, or Naira, the island with the administrative capital and a small airfield (as well as accommodation for visitors). Present on Banda Neira is Fort Belgica, one of the largest remaining Dutch forts that are still intact in Indonesia.
 * Banda Api, an active volcano (Gunung Api) with a peak of about 650 m.
 * Banda Besar, or Lonthoir, is the largest island (Indonesian besar, big), 12 km long and 3 km wide. It has three main settlements, Lonthoir, Selamon and Waer.

Some distance to the west:
 * Pulau Ai or Pulau Ay
 * Pulau Run, further west again. In the 17th century, this island was involved in an exchange between the British and the Dutch: it was exchanged for the island of Manhattan in New York.

To the east:
 * Pulau Pisang (Banana Island), also known as Syahrir.

To the southeast:
 * Pulau Hatta, formerly Rosengain or Rozengain

Others, possibly small and/or uninhabited, are:
 * Nailaka, a short distance northeast of Pulau Run
 * Batu Kapal, a small island northwest of Pulau Pisang
 * Manuk, an active volcano
 * Pulau Keraka or Pulau Karaka (Crab Island), a short distance north of Banda Api
 * Manukang or Suanggi, to the northwest of the main group
 * Hatta Reef

The islands are part of the Banda Sea Islands moist deciduous forests ecoregion.

Language
Bandanese speak Banda Malay, which has several features distinguishing it from Ambonese Malay, a Malay dialect that is a lingua franca in central and southern Maluku alongside Indonesian. Banda Malay is famous in the region for its unique, lilting accent, but it also has a number of locally identifying words in its lexicon, many of them borrowings or loanwords from Dutch.

Examples:
 * fork: forok (Dutch vork)
 * ant: mir (Dutch mier)
 * spoon: lepe (Dutch lepel)
 * difficult: lastek (Dutch lastig)
 * floor: plur (Dutch vloer)
 * porch: stup (Dutch stoep)

Banda Malay shares many Portuguese loanwords with Ambonese Malay not appearing in the national language, Indonesian. But it has comparatively fewer, and they differ in pronunciation.

Examples:
 * turtle: tetaruga (Banda Malay); totoruga (Ambonese Malay) (from Portuguese tartaruga)
 * throat: gargontong (Banda Malay); gargangtang (Ambonese Malay) (from Portuguese garganta)

Finally, and most noticeably, Banda Malay uses some distinct pronouns. The most immediately distinguishing is that of the second person singular familiar form of address: pané.

The descendants of some of the Bandanese who fled Dutch conquest in the seventeenth century live in the Kai Islands (Kepulauan Kei) to the east of the Banda group, where a version of the original Banda language is still spoken in the villages of Banda Eli and Banda Elat on Kai Besar Island. While long integrated into Kei Island society, residents of these settlements continue to value the historical origins of their ancestors.

Culture
Most of the present-day inhabitants of the Banda Islands are descended from migrants and plantation labourers from various parts of Indonesia, as well as from indigenous Bandanese. They have inherited aspects of pre-colonial ritual practices in the Banda Islands that are highly valued and still performed, giving them a distinct and very local cultural identity.

General references

 * Warburg, Otto (1897) Die Muskatnuss: ihre Geschichte, Botanik, Kultur, Handel und Verwerthung sowie ihre Verfälschungen und Surrogate zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte der Banda-Inseln. Leipzig: Engelmann.
 * Warburg, Otto (1897) Die Muskatnuss: ihre Geschichte, Botanik, Kultur, Handel und Verwerthung sowie ihre Verfälschungen und Surrogate zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte der Banda-Inseln. Leipzig: Engelmann.
 * Warburg, Otto (1897) Die Muskatnuss: ihre Geschichte, Botanik, Kultur, Handel und Verwerthung sowie ihre Verfälschungen und Surrogate zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte der Banda-Inseln. Leipzig: Engelmann.
 * Warburg, Otto (1897) Die Muskatnuss: ihre Geschichte, Botanik, Kultur, Handel und Verwerthung sowie ihre Verfälschungen und Surrogate zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte der Banda-Inseln. Leipzig: Engelmann.

title: Banda Islands