Tweet
WAS IT REALLY GENOCIDE?
Namibia Economist
http://www.economist.com.na/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24359 :was-it-really-genocide&catid=591:speak-your-mind
Oct 21 2011
Written by Administrator
Dear sir,
An often heard expression in connection with our past is 'genocide'.
It is unclear what the genocide in the context of the uprising of
the Herero was. What makes a colonial war as ugly as the annihilation
wars waged in other parts of our world?
Let us look at examples that had an aim to eradicate peoples. The old
Romans fought such a war against the people of Karthago; Turkey tried
to exterminate the Armenians, Hitler went against the Jews and some
African people went against each other, for instance the Rwandan and
Burundi people will be a good modern example. Genocide is nothing less
than the serious, planned attempt to annihilate a people or part of it.
This was not the case in the then German-Southwest Africa. The Germans,
a mere handful of people, were truly invited by the Herero people
to protect them against the Nama people; the Herero and Germans
signed a contract. Even the Nama people, at a later stage, signed
such a contract and all the indigenous tribes accepted the rule of
the Kaiser. The Schutzgebiet and its hierarchy was established.
The Schutzgebiet was a rather poor country at that time. Besides the
enormous wide, 'open' space, little riches could be seen; the presence
of diamonds and uranium were unknown. The South produced nothing;
its people, the Nama and Oorlam tribes hunted or stole domestic stock
from each other and they made war against any opponent deemed weaker
than themselves, especially the Herero, from whom they stole cattle
by the hundreds of thousands over the years.
Yes, the Herero produced cattle, really lots of cattle. However,
these huge herds of cattle were their wealth and wealth in its final
form and seldom sold, seldom butchered - we all know it. Milk was a
staple food, not so the meat of the cattle. The Nama warlords sold
these cattle, mainly in exchange for weaponry, clothing, groceries
and alcohol from South African dealers.
What attracted the Germans were, indeed, the wide but actually not
so open, and rather waterless spaces and to acquire part of these
was their aim. However, the land, tormented by wars and its people
decimated, had to be appeased to make it fit for use. This was highly
important. It was also important for them to have cheap labour.
A 'genocide' on the Ovaherero and other tribes would not have served
their aims altogether and was never planned; an empty land, bare of
people would have made the colony worthless. We have to think again
about these facts before we attempt to speak about a 'genocide war'.
And before we judge what happened about a hundred years ago, we have
to look at the general thinking of that time.
We also have to try to evaluate the human thinking about the [value]
of other human beings, about wars, imperialism, about how humans
justified wars and all of these issues and many more in relation of
the change of times and dynamics of perceptions.
If some of us try to judge what happened in a way to be 'politically
correct' now, they may be factually very wrong. They will be wrong
politically too. Today we are building a nation by looking forward.
Building monuments to remember a certain genocide will quickly expose
other 'genocides'. Asking for reparations from Germany will certainly
open the way for our San and Damara people to ask for reparations
from the Herero and Nama who hunted these people down and killed or
enslaved them and drove them into the mountains and deserts. Both
Herero and Nama did it in the olden times, when their perceptions
of San and Damara were different from their perception about a human
being altogether.
P. Rudolf Windhoek (Letter shortened - Ed.)
Namibia Economist
http://www.economist.com.na/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24359 :was-it-really-genocide&catid=591:speak-your-mind
Oct 21 2011
Written by Administrator
Dear sir,
An often heard expression in connection with our past is 'genocide'.
It is unclear what the genocide in the context of the uprising of
the Herero was. What makes a colonial war as ugly as the annihilation
wars waged in other parts of our world?
Let us look at examples that had an aim to eradicate peoples. The old
Romans fought such a war against the people of Karthago; Turkey tried
to exterminate the Armenians, Hitler went against the Jews and some
African people went against each other, for instance the Rwandan and
Burundi people will be a good modern example. Genocide is nothing less
than the serious, planned attempt to annihilate a people or part of it.
This was not the case in the then German-Southwest Africa. The Germans,
a mere handful of people, were truly invited by the Herero people
to protect them against the Nama people; the Herero and Germans
signed a contract. Even the Nama people, at a later stage, signed
such a contract and all the indigenous tribes accepted the rule of
the Kaiser. The Schutzgebiet and its hierarchy was established.
The Schutzgebiet was a rather poor country at that time. Besides the
enormous wide, 'open' space, little riches could be seen; the presence
of diamonds and uranium were unknown. The South produced nothing;
its people, the Nama and Oorlam tribes hunted or stole domestic stock
from each other and they made war against any opponent deemed weaker
than themselves, especially the Herero, from whom they stole cattle
by the hundreds of thousands over the years.
Yes, the Herero produced cattle, really lots of cattle. However,
these huge herds of cattle were their wealth and wealth in its final
form and seldom sold, seldom butchered - we all know it. Milk was a
staple food, not so the meat of the cattle. The Nama warlords sold
these cattle, mainly in exchange for weaponry, clothing, groceries
and alcohol from South African dealers.
What attracted the Germans were, indeed, the wide but actually not
so open, and rather waterless spaces and to acquire part of these
was their aim. However, the land, tormented by wars and its people
decimated, had to be appeased to make it fit for use. This was highly
important. It was also important for them to have cheap labour.
A 'genocide' on the Ovaherero and other tribes would not have served
their aims altogether and was never planned; an empty land, bare of
people would have made the colony worthless. We have to think again
about these facts before we attempt to speak about a 'genocide war'.
And before we judge what happened about a hundred years ago, we have
to look at the general thinking of that time.
We also have to try to evaluate the human thinking about the [value]
of other human beings, about wars, imperialism, about how humans
justified wars and all of these issues and many more in relation of
the change of times and dynamics of perceptions.
If some of us try to judge what happened in a way to be 'politically
correct' now, they may be factually very wrong. They will be wrong
politically too. Today we are building a nation by looking forward.
Building monuments to remember a certain genocide will quickly expose
other 'genocides'. Asking for reparations from Germany will certainly
open the way for our San and Damara people to ask for reparations
from the Herero and Nama who hunted these people down and killed or
enslaved them and drove them into the mountains and deserts. Both
Herero and Nama did it in the olden times, when their perceptions
of San and Damara were different from their perception about a human
being altogether.
P. Rudolf Windhoek (Letter shortened - Ed.)