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%.