And then....went on to create a war to end all wars in Europe, with the loss of millions of lives in 1914...to again repeat the mayhem soon after, in a repeat performance a second time with similar losses in 1939.

I'm ashamed to say that I had never heard of this genocide. It makes for harrowing reading. Whatever the outcome of the legal case, I hope it gets more international acknowledgement.

Colonial Africa was an horrific place for the native peoples. White European rulers have a lot of blood on their hands. Yet at the time, concentration camps were not new. It was standard policy of white colonial powers - from the US to Asia - to use concentration camps as a weapon of war against native peoples. It was also standard policy in wars between white European powers - e.g. tens of thousands of Boer civilians died in British concentration camps - and as a means of vanquishing radical opponents - e.g. the gulags of Czarist Russia and the later Soviet Union.

International law needs to be eternally vigilant against the use of internment as a political weapon.

diver dan

Germany did not 'create' WWI. That's victor's rhetoric. The reasons are complex, but much of the blame for WWI lies with the insane system of political-military alliances that meant that any flare-up between European states drew all parties into inevitable conflict. Europe was a basket case of gung-ho military daring-do between rival imperial powers.

1904? seriously? Who's left to prosecute from a time before the Geneva convention was even thought of. What about the 120 innocent Germans murdered that started the conflict?

Next, suing the Germans for WW2, suing the boers for the battle of blood river, or suing the Romans for crucifying Christ?

Africa was a wonderful place before those evil racist white people got there. All of the Africans lived in peace with each other like little hobbits. There as no crime, no wars, no slavery, no cannibalism, no head hunting, no human sacrifices, no starvation, and no epidemics. All of these evil things were all invented by white people.

All Africans lived in harmony with nature and did not use fossil fuels. Fossil fuels were invented by those evil racist white people, the very ones who are destroying the planet through global warming. African civilisation was highly advanced before those evil white people came, and Africans were world leaders in technology, science, medicine, education, and social advancement. Every African country had a space exploration program. Feminism was invented in Africa, and of course, all African tribes allowed homosexual marriage. African economies were all socialist, and Africans everywhere were known for their extreme tolerance of outsiders, especially refugees.

Asian and Arab people were noted for their good relations with African people, and everybody was happy until the whites came along.

White people invented racism, slavery, capitalism, war, and every other evil on the planet. In Australia, they even stole babies from the breasts of black mothers. In addition, this despicable race has contributed absolutely nothing to the advancement of the human race. The reason why Africa is so dysfunctional is because white people made it that way. It's all the white guys fault.

What the world needs to do, is to dilute this evil white race right out of existence through immigration. The world will be a better place when this race of genocidal racists is exterminated. Fortunately, those plans are now well advanced in every white homeland.

LEGO

Africa before European imperialism was no more or less wonderful than any other continent.

However, apart from Egypt and Carthage, Europeans have little to no knowledge of African history. The ancient kingdoms of Ethiopia, Mali, Zimbabwe and Kongo were typically advanced civilisations that rose and fell over time and had their own rich histories. For millennia, pan-African trade flourished along the rivers and coastal regions and with India, the Far East and also with parts of Europe, especially Ireland and Spain. As a result of this trade, they enjoyed many of the mod-cons of the day, or at least the wealthy did.

The slave trade destroyed much of this commercial trade, as travel within the continent became too dangerous, except for Europeans, and strongly contributed to the collapse of these civilisations. (Even so, there is evidence that the Kongo kings, for example, collaborated with the slavers in order to get rid of radicals and undesirables.)

Unfortunately, the problems that plague the African continent today DO stem largely from European conquest and colonialism - also Muslim conquest. So much so, that it is very hard to extricate the European/Muslim imperial legacy from current problems that are traditionally African.

Perhaps over time, Europeans may come to learn more about the real Africa, as opposed to the 'Dark Continent' tropes we have been drip-fed. Conversely, Africans are starting to revise their education curricula to weed out Euro-centric dominance, e.g. South Africa is proposing to drop Shakespeare from its English syllabus and put its emphasis on the great writers of Africa and their own rich tradition of literature and poetry.

Killarney,

The indigenous africans prior to colonialism were butchering each other at a prodigious rate, secondly the kingdoms that you mentioned never achieved the written word, and were mostly squalid encampments where a tiny minority enjoyed a modicum of wealth and power.

The lifting of colonialism enabled them largely to revert, this time with guns, tanks and aircraft, and there are very few citizens of this continent who enjoy a standard of living or safety even approaching what they had before freedom.

The events in Namibia which are described in this article occurred from 1904 to 1907. These events started two years after the Second Anglo-Boer War, 1899 – 1902, (henceforth called the Boer War), in which concentration camps featured as part of British policy in prosecuting the war. In that war 18,000 to 28,000 Boer civilians (about 26,000 is the usually accepted number) and 12,000 Blacks died in British concentration camps (Thomas Pakenham, 1979, The Boer War). Coming so shortly after the Boer War, the German colonial administrators of South West Africa would have noticed how the British used concentration camps in that war. Those administrators would then have developed the idea of the concentration camp further and applied those developments in the Herero-Nama Wars.
If the author wishes to draw a line linking the South West African concentration camps to the concentration camps of World War Two, it should be extended further back to include the British camps of the Boer War.
Perhaps those suing the German government should also sue the British government for implanting the idea of concentration camps into the minds of the German colonial administrators.

Concerning the last sentence of the article, according to the author’s figures, a total of 66,750 to 81,750 Hereros, Namas and Germans died in the Herero-Nama Wars. If Pakenham’s numbers are added up, the total number of Boer War deaths, battle and civilian (including concentration camp deaths), comes to 67,000, a number within the range of the Herero-Nama Wars. Combined with the burnt farms, blown up railways and loss of mine production, this number demonstrates that the Boer War was just as devastating as the Herero-Nama Wars. You could, however, be pedantic, and say that the Boer War was a 19th century war because it started in 1899 and that therefore you could discount any comparison with the Herero-Nama Wars, which occurred in the 20th century.
However, in the 20th century there were many wars in Southern Africa which were much more devastating than the Herero-Nama wars. For example, there were the Angolan (1975 – 2002) and Mozambican (1977 – 1992, 2013 – present) Civil Wars, which cost over 500,000 and 1,000,000 lives respectively, and displaced many millions of people. Then there were the various wars of independence and other civil wars, which together cost more lives than the Herero-Nama Wars.

Killarney, I was once an anti racist like your good self. What made me start thinking straight, was articles like this one, that presumes that white civilisation is the scourge of the world. Every advanced civilisation in human history, regardless of race, religion or culture, expanded it's borders into barbarian lands. Often this was done for sheer necessity. Primitive warlike people have always coveted the material possessions of the more advanced settled peoples, and have always raided civilisation. It was always a good idea for the civilised nations to sort the buggers out before they could become a threat. Think of Britain and the Vikings, or the USA and the Barbary pirates, and you get the idea.

Prior to 1600 AD, almost every civilisation on planet Earth was at the same level of technology. But it was the white, North European nations who began to ignore their priestly castes, and who cultivated critical thinking, who rocketed ahead of the rest of the world. The European Age of Imperialism was the greatest civilising force that this planet had ever seen, and it was as inevitable a the rising of tomorrows sun. It bestowed upon entire barbarian peoples medicine, agriculture, industry, and commerce. It built roads, schools, hospitals and bridges where none had before existed. I refuse to accept that this was usually a bad thing for the people of barbarian lands. Civilisation has always advanced at the point of a sword.

You can point out where European imperialism was brutal, rapacious, and self serving. But given the brutalities inherent in every barbarian society it was usually no worse than what the ordinary people got from their own backward leadership anyway. In Namibia, the two local tribes were already well known for butchering each other.

Overall, European imperialism in Africa was more good than bad. Since those dirty white imperialists fled, Africa has gone steadily backwards. In many African countries today, all of the infrastructure was built by the colonialists and it is rotting away, no matter how much UN Aid gets poured into these African countries.

"The slave trade destroyed much of this commercial trade, as travel within the continent became too dangerous, except for Europeans, and strongly contributed to the collapse of these civilisations."

Well, given that the African slave trade existed for 500 yrs prior to the arrival of western traders and that in that period vastly greater numbers of slaves went east than went west, this assertion is utter rubbish.

But since, for some, whatever bad things happened were, definitionally, caused by the west, this misunderstanding of history is entirely predictable.

In the Concentration Camp Stakes, the Confederate, Andersonville prison would be a likely contender.

"The site [Andersonville] is an iconic reminder of the horrors of Civil War prisons. It was commanded by Captain Henry Wirz, who was tried and executed after the war for war crimes. It was overcrowded to four times its capacity, with an inadequate water supply, inadequate food rations, and unsanitary conditions. Of the approximately 45,000 Union prisoners held at Camp Sumter [Andersonville] during the war, nearly 13,000 died. The chief causes of death were scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery [and the heavily polluted general water supply]."
from Wikipedia.

LEGO

‘Killarney, I was once an anti racist like your good self. What made me start thinking straight, was articles like this one, that presumes that white civilisation is the scourge of the world.’

While I used the term ‘white European’ on reflex, I was not making an argument about racism but about imperialism. The issue of imperialism has always been contentious – there will always be those who see imperialism as a force for good and others who will always see it as malevolent. I’ve also tried to point out to OLO posters in the past that criticism of European imperialism and its general history does not equate with portraying the West as ‘evil’. Many people like myself simply prefer to challenge and question many of the accepted tropes of Western history and its values. I am still proud of my white European heritage and have chosen to live there.

As for imperialism, to me, it’s is like having a wealthy family forcibly move in to your house, take over the title deed and force you and your family to become their low-paid servants and live in a squalid outhouse for which you have to pay them rent, while they gentrify your former house for their own comfort and capital gain.

Re technological advancement, having a technologically 'superior' status does not usually create a socially beneficial society. At the height of European technological advancement and imperial wealth, at least two-thirds of the population of Western Europe lived in abject squalor (arguably worse than the average African of the time) and their societies were riddled with a stringent class system that still controls much of Western culture and politics.

As for Africans butchering one another – compared to what? WWI cost 19 million lives and WWII 60 million. Has Africa ever come close to achieving a comparable statistic?

Mhaze

‘Well, given that the African slave trade existed for 500 yrs prior to the arrival of western traders and that in that period vastly greater numbers of slaves went east than went west, this assertion is utter rubbish.’

Yes, slavery in Africa existed long before the European slave trade, but it operated in a different form. Africa did not have prisons (and neither did the Old Europe societies) – these were introduced by the technologically advanced imperial powers. Slavery was mainly used as a means of working off a punishment for a crime or as the spoils of war. And yes, in earlier centuries, many sub-Saharan slaves were sold into Middle Eastern and North African Muslim markets.

Also, I’m not sure about your chronology – Portugal put down imperial roots in Africa from the 15th century and Britain, France and other European powers from the 17th and 18th centuries. So I don’t know what your point is.

The European slave trade not only restricted internal African trade, it also stripped the African civilisations of many of their most able-bodied men and women – a recipe for social collapse.

Smee Again and Is Mise

Agree with your points re the Boer War and American Civil War. Also, the US Indian reservations were a variant of the concentration camp, with a similarly catastrophic outcome for the native peoples.

Killarney,

When Mzilikazi broke away from Shaka Zulu, he fled with his army across the north of what is South Africa today. To stop the pursuing Zulu army, he employed a burnt earth policy of killing nearly every one in his path, burning the crops and killing the livestock. From what I've read the human death toll was nearly 500 000.

More recently, the Rwandan genocide was over 1000 000, and the following clashes have killed nearly as many. Then there's Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, etc all with death tolls in the 100 000s, and not a colonial in sight.

Hi Killarney,

Sorry, I have to disagree with you on one point:

"The European slave trade not only restricted internal African trade, it also stripped the African civilisations of many of their most able-bodied men and women – a recipe for social collapse."

First, a question: why did European slave stations occupy barely a few hundred yards (metres) on parts of the African coast-line ?

1. Muslim slave traders have been rounding up Africans and trading them across the Muslim world for more than a thousand years, and it hasn't stopped yet: slaves in Mauretania have recently been given the vote, so their rights are being slowly improved. During the dark days of the trans-Atlantic trade, traders would bring slaves to those coastal stations from far inland.

2. Slaves were traded for Western goods, guns, etc. The slave trade had a huge impact on the economic development of West Africa. Check out Hugh Thomas' massive book on the history of slavery.

And, as has been pointed out, who took the initiative to stop the trans-Atlantic trade in the early 1800s ? William Wilberforce and the Quakers. By the way, as I understand it, Captain Arthur Phillip was a friend of Wilberforce.

Saudi Arabia claims to have officially abolished slavery in about 1961.

Cheers,

Joe

I'm not sure what problems you have with my chronology, Killarney, unless you are unaware that the slave trade into the M-E had been going on since at least the 9th century.

My point is that the European trade didn't cause the disruption to African society that is alleged. The trade was already long established and the Europeans simply plugged into that trade. Europeans didn't venture into the dark continent to seek out slaves but simply took slaves who were bought to the west coast via a trade network that had been long since established.

________________________________________________________-

As to the artciles call for compensation, I think its perfectly valid that anyone involved in the massacres ought to compensate anyone who suffered during said massacres. If only we can find these 130 yr old folk.

Mhaze and Loudmouth

All your arguments are appreciated. Thanks.

African slavery is a huge, multi-faceted subject. European trans-Atlantic African slavery has been more studied than internal African slavery, but no historian on the subject denies the existence of an extensive slave trade within Africa before and during the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

The trans-Atlantic slave trade peaked at 70,000 per year in the mid-1700s, while the Arab slave trade peaked at 10,000 per year in the 1600s (Patrick Manning). Around 12.8 million people were transported by the Atlantic slave trade between 1450 and 1900 (roughly 450 years), while an estimated 6.2 million were sold into the Arab slave market between 600 and 1600 AD (roughly 1000 years). In the nineteenth century alone, an estimated 1.65 million slaves were transported to the US (Paul Lovejoy).

If these figures are correct, then given the agrarian, tribal-based socio-economic structure of the affected African societies, and the Atlantic slave trade preference for young males, this can’t possibly have been anything other than devastating to their societies and economies.

Ironically, the European and US abolition of slavery also contributed to the decline of the affected African societies, because African slavers could no longer reap the considerable economic benefits of their compliance with the European slavers.

Loudmouth

Re the abolition movement in Europe and US, much of this was propelled by morality, but the underlying motivation was economic. Industrial Europe no longer had any need for slavery as millions of disaffected peasants from the land flocked into the cities.

In addition, over 50 million people emigrated from Europe to the US during the nineteenth century, many through assisted passage. This indicates that the overheated European peasantry drift to the cities had become an economic liability to be got rid of, while the underpopulated US welcomed the influx of cheap migrant labour. The northern industrial US states no longer needed slavery, so they could afford to get all moralistic about it. But the agrarian-based southern states, who still needed slavery, continued to defend their right to own, buy and sell human beings.

Shadow minister

Yes, true. Africa has had its fair share of genocides without colonial input. Shaka Zulu himself was a genocidal maniac.

As for Rwanda, the official genocide story propagated by the West is a bit of a fairytale. Western propaganda relentlessly propagandises the trope that Hutus suddenly went mad and machete’d to death Tutsis in their hundreds of thousands. Yet the facts don’t back this up. At the time of the genocide, there were 500,000 Tutsis living in Rwanda. After the genocide, there were 300,000. So, out of a total of 1 million deaths, who were the other 800,000? And why are there still hundreds of thousands of Hutu refugees living in Burkino Faso, who are too terrified to return to Rwanda?

Under the Tutsi dictatorship of the US-trained and financially supported Paul Kagame and his Rwandan Patriotic Front, if I were a Rwandan writing this comment, I would be facing at least ten years’ jail

SM & Killarney,

There's not much point playing the "tu quoque" game: such massacres were totally reprehensible no matter who perpetrated them. Since the thread is about German atrocities in Africa, it's worth pointing out that they also carried out massacres in Tanganyika before the First World War.

The slave trade in West Africa probably financed some of the 'glorious empires' such as Songhai and Mali. I wouldn't weep any tears for the effects of stopping the trade there.

Slightly on a tangent, in northern sub-Saharan Africa, concerning the usual practice before the British enforced their rule there: when cultivators and pastoralists needed finance and had to borrow funds from Muslim money-lenders, and since it was illegal under Muslim law for lenders to charge interest - the land-owners were obliged to 'sell' their land to the lender and to rent their own land back, until they could somehow buy it back. But since land bought by Muslims must forever remain Muslim, the land of Allah, they would have had to convert before they could get it back. In the meantime they had to pay full rent, no matter how much they had been 'paid' for it.

When the British arrived, they set up Agricultural Banks, Development Banks, etc., offering loans at much lower interest rates. That put a stop to 'selling' land. Evil, oppressive colonialist bastards !

Joe

Killarney,

All I can do is go with the figures from reliable historical sources which pin the death toll in Rwanda at >800 000. Similarly figures for the Tutsi population was closer to 1.2m, and not all those killed were tutsis. While we can quibble about numbers, there is no doubt that in africa there have been massacres by one tribe or group on another long before and after the incident in this thread.

So 104 yrs later when the grandparents of those involved any any institutions involved have passed into history the question is why is an international hearing on this incident and few of the others. My cynical mind notes that this hearing is accompanied by a demand for compensation, which I guess is the prime motive.

Loudmouth

Yes, interesting on all counts. What’s really important here is that those who are interested need to learn more about 'the Dark Continent's' history warts and all – especially Africans! We in the West have been hopelessly starved of historical information that is outside the colonial-centric information we have to date.

One point to add, your scenario about Muslim money-lending is pretty much a tale of imperialism everywhere – especially in Ireland, where for centuries Catholics could not own property unless they converted to the Protestant faith.

Shadow minister

The numbers surrounding the Rwandan genocide are hard to pin down, especially as there is a total blackout in Rwanda about questioning the official story. And in the West, anyone who questions it is automatically charged with ‘genocide denial’. However, it is inextricably linked with the Congolese wars of the 1990s, which caused 5.4 million deaths. These wars had many players – inside and outside of Africa – due in part to its mineral wealth (especially rare earth minerals, which are fundamental to the IT industry).

I agree with your cynicism about Namibia seeking compensation for a 104-year-old genocide, especially if France’s claim to have made extensive financial contributions to the country are true. Perhaps much of it is about official international recognition. A symbolic healing process?

Killarney,

As I said previously, most reputable sources put the estimate of those killed at between 800k to 1m. I find no reason for anyone to fake these numbers outside of conspiracy theorists. Even then 200 000 killed still makes my point. Secondly, while Kigali was involved in the civil war in Zaire, as the civil war occurred after the Rwandan genocide the cause and effect is reversed, especially since the invasion of Zaire by the Tutsi led government was motivated by Zaire harbouring Hutu militias, many involved in the original genocide. The prime cause of the collapse of Zaire being the 2 decades of Mobutu led kleptocracy, the battle over the corpse of Zaire for minerals was a battle of opportunity by surrounding african states.

Finally the colonial power in Namibia was Germany, and I find it difficult to believe that the Namibian government is looking for healing by prosecuting a 104 yr old conflict that few of its citizens even know about, while ignoring to the many conflicts subsequent.

Killarney,

"If these figures are correct,..."

There's the rub. This whole issue is now so fraught with political correctness and urgency to blame it all on the west, that its now really quite impossible to know how many Africans were wrenched from the homeland to feed the Arab markets.

However I think the numbers you've used are at the very bottom end of the scale of estimates. The more reliable numbers I see is that over the period in question somehwere between 20-30 million Africans ended up in Asia as slaves (although that number has been estimated by some as being 60 million) and that a further 50-80 million died enroute on the slave-trade routes.

One of the major causes for the high number of deaths was the practice of castrating young male slaves ( a practice that went back to at least the 6th century BC) which resulted in death rates of 50-60%.