THE HISTORIES OF ATROCITIES page 23

         AND THE FORMULATION OF THE ELITIST'S PRINCIPLES , TO ENGINEER THE  DECIMATION OF THE HUMAN FAMILY, TO BRING IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER, AND OR TO PREPARE THE EVACUATION OF  THIS PENAL COLONY WE CALL EARTH,

The atrocities by the Germans to the inhabitants of south west Africa, is not surprising, as the monarchs of Britain themselves of German linage, have in the past, committed mass genocide, all over the new world, and today, they are now, under the guise and direction of  American gargoyles,  themselves blood line of  Germanic royalty are presently doing the same to  the middle east.

HowardIsrael BenRohan

shalom

Genocide and the history of violent expansionism
The 20th century had been termed the "century of genocides". In 2004 
the first of a series of these turned a hundred years. It reminded us 
of a history of mass violence directed against specifically defined 
population groups, which had to a certain extent its origins and roots 
in the violent expansion of European colonialism.
18 March 2005 - Dr. Henning Melber
Source: Pambazuka News, A Weekly Electronic Forum For Social Justice In Africa http://www.pambazuka.org/ 

The German empire 
played a particularly prominent (though by no means exclusive) role 
during this era of violently imposed foreign domination. 2005 reminds 
of another such event, when the mass killing in then "German East 
Africa" (the oppression of the so-called "Maji-Maji rebellion") turns a 
century. It can be assumed that this dark chapter in the history of 
what is euphemistically called "North-South relations" is even less 
noticed in public debate than the first of its kind a year earlier. 

One might assume that it would be part of an established common 
understanding that what started in early 1904 in the German colonial 
territory called South West Africa was by standards applicable today a 
genocide. This, at least, is the conclusion presented by the "Whitaker 
Report", adopted as an official document by a United Nations body. It 
lists the German colonial war of 1904 to 1907 as the first genocide of 
the 20th century. The most striking phenomenon in dealing with the 
events a hundred years later is therefore, that in public perception as 
well as scholarly and political discourse the views still differ 
fundamentally. 

For large parts of collective memory in Germany this chapter is either 
closed or even forgotten. In contrast to this widespread amnesia or 
indifference the trauma lives on among parts of the Namibian 
population. It keeps the generations of descendants to the victims in 
demand for recognition of and compensation for the crimes committed. As 
the selectivity of the (non) commemorations during 2004 showed, the 
legacy and its treatment remain a battlefield. It provided a forum for 
often uncompromising exchanges on how to come to terms with the past in 
the present. 

In August 2002, the Herero Paramount Chief commented upon the private 
claims for reparations from the German government and a few German 
companies, which upon his instructions were initiated at a US-American 
Court during late 2001. While doing so, he declared the land question 
in Namibia to be solely a Herero issue. A spokesperson for the 
Coordinating Committee for the First Official Commemoration of the 
Ovaherero Genocide stated two years later that genocide was in Namibia 
only committed towards the Herero. 

Such monopolising claims are tantamount to blatant denial of the 
sacrifices made by other communities like the Nama. It also makes a 
mockery of the suffering of the Damara and San. To all these - today 
even more marginalized - groups this exclusion adds insult to injury 
and is certainly not conducive to concerted efforts of those to whom 
justice had been denied for generations. At the same time, it 
implicitly and ironically also undermines the legitimacy of the Herero 
case, which otherwise ought to be undisputed and beyond any doubt 
relevant for coming to terms with the past. 

Members of the group tend to brush aside the concern expressed over 
such monopolisation of the victim status. Instead, accusations of 
racism and Eurocentrism come in handy to dismiss any discourse on how 
best an advocacy might be pursued in the interest of more than just one 
among those groups. The claims to genuine identity and corresponding 
victim status create an aura of exclusivity and consequently a we-they 
divide with the rest of the world. This competitive way of pursuing the 
case prevents any meaningful dialogue. The motives of those, who in 
such reductionist way seek the recognition so far denied to them, might 
be perfectly understandable. They want to pursue and achieve in their 
own view only historical justice. But this prevents wider coalitions 
and seems to happen at the expense of others, who remain outside of any 
public interest and are therefore denied recognition as victims. 

The Namibian government did address the matter in a different but even 
less constructive perspective. It kept a demonstratively low profile on 
the general issue. No government-sponsored initiative took upon itself 
to prepare any coordinated event to commemorate the dark chapter (and 
by doing so flag the recognition of the primary resistance during these 
days as an early part of nation building). 

The only official act honoured the centenary with the issuing of a 
special stamp on Independence Day on 21st March 2004. In the declared 
spirit of national reconciliation it did not single out any particular 
group. Instead, the motive chosen was a white dove. This symbolic 
vagueness denied victims any degree of visibility and confined them to 
absolute anonymity. At the same time, such evasive symbolism saved the 
descendants of the perpetrators from any confrontational challenge to 
deal with the legacy. Namibia's government also explicitly distanced 
itself from the initiative by a group of Herero to seek reparations 
from Germany. 

The President and other senior government officials did not follow an 
invitation to attend the ceremonies in Okahandja, which marked the 
hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the Herero war against German 
colonial occupation in January 2004. Hifikepunye Pohamba, successor to 
Sam Nujoma as Head of State, however, did attend the ceremony 
commemorating the battles in the Waterberg plateau area in mid-August 
2004. It remains speculation to what extent this might have been 
necessitated by the fact that the German Minister for Economic 
Cooperation, representing the biggest single donor country was one of 
the main speakers. When the Herero gathered for their annual meeting 
end of August at the graves of their ancestors, government officials 
attended the commemoration of the beginning of the armed struggle by 
Swapo elsewhere. The parallel activities illustrated the contrasting 
traditions of resistance in a case, where - differently from 
neighbouring Zimbabwe - the first chimurenga related mainly to other 
local groups than the second one. 

The Namibian government seemed to be almost in silent agreement with 
those among the German-speaking minority in Namibia and those 
representing the official position of the German government by treating 
the centenary almost as a non-issue. The German ambassador to Namibia 
on occasion of the commemoration ceremony in January 2004 (which in 
contrast to Namibian government officials he actually did attend) 
reiterated his government's position by explaining: "It would not be 
justified to compensate one specific ethnic group for their suffering 
during the colonial times, as this could reinforce ethnic tensions and 
thus undermine the policy of national reconciliation which we fully 
support." This sounds sensible but serves as a convenient excuse for no 
compensation of the descendants who suffered most from direct 
oppression, defeat and subsequent exploitation and subjugation through 
the German colonial authorities. 

There would be an obvious justification for affirmative action related 
preferential treatment with regard to a redistribution of the land 
taken under German colonialism. It should benefit as a priority these 
communities, who were robbed of their land as a prelude and aftermath 
to the genocide. But the land issue is treated as if the historical 
connotations would not offer a direct frame of reference as to who 
should be entitled to claims and compensated accordingly. This benefits 
the government's main clientele living in or coming from the densely 
populated former Owamboland (north of the zone of direct German 
occupation), but neither Herero nor Nama, Damara and least of all the 
San. 

In what might be termed a pact among elites, the German government has 
chosen to opt for the more convenient avenue of playing along with such 
biased official Namibian policy. Germany's Foreign Minister had stated 
as late as 2003 that no apology will be offered, which might be 
considered of relevance for compensation. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder 
during his first official visits to African countries in January 2004 - 
at a time when the genocide turned a century - skipped the former 
colony and thereby simply ignored the historical part of 
German-Namibian relations at the centre of the debate in 2004. 

The German position took a surprising turn from the previous official 
denial during a year in which as a positive experience an unexpected 
number of local, regional and national NGO initiatives raised the issue 
in Germany by means of lectures, seminars, exhibitions and related 
public events and hence created some unofficial but visible discourse 
over the unfinished business. 

The Minister for Economic Cooperation attended the ceremonies in 
August 2004 remembering the biggest military clashes between Herero and 
Germans taking place a hundred years earlier. In an emotional speech 
she admitted on behalf of her government guilt and remorse. She stated 
that the German colonial war a hundred years earlier would qualify from 
today's perspective as genocide. Asked for an apology (the word did not 
appear in the text she read out), she expressed the understanding that 
her whole speech was an apology. This provoked harsh criticism back in 
Germany mainly by members of the opposition parties, who accused the 
Minister for risking an expensive bill for being carried away. There 
remains, however, so far a lack of visible subsequent consequences, 
which would indicate that this has resulted indeed in a direct change 
of policy towards the issues of compensation with any budgetary 
implications. 

Interesting is the fact that the treatment of the historical issue 
(intentionally or not) remains confined to the colonial chapter. It 
avoids any references to the subsequent developments in Germany. After 
all, to reflect upon genocidal atrocities is more than dealing with 
guilt and remorse (though this in itself would be a perfectly 
legitimate and sufficient motive to do so). In the Namibian case, this 
links up with the more specifically German trajectory. The question is, 
if and to what extent the colonial genocide paved the way for the 
particular concept of final solution and extinction of the enemy, 
culminating in the war crimes and the holocaust in the 1940s. 

In a colonial situation as it prevailed in Namibia in the early 20th 
century, the denial of human value to the "uncivilised natives" is 
predicated in the structurally racist set-up of colonialism. This is 
even more the case when the aim of colonial rule is not simply control 
and exploitation of the country, its resources and inhabitants, but 
rather, settlement by members of the colonising society. The inherent 
racism of settler colonialism has worked to lower the threshold of mass 
killings in appalling ways in many cases. The parole "exterminate the 
brutes" is a simple illustration of this. In Namibia, the ideology and 
strategy of the genocidal practices applied require us to explore the 
degree of a specifically German case within the wide range of colonial 
atrocities and mass violence elsewhere. As evidence shows, there 
existed continuities in accounts and novels read by a mass readership, 
in military practice as well as in the activities of specific persons, 
and in doctrines and routines of warfare that link strategic ideas of 
decisive battles to the concept of final solution and extinction of the 
enemy, which came into full effect under the Nazi regime. 

Such an approach within a wider context implies the journey into the 
belly of the beast - "the horror", as visualised by Mister Kurtz with 
his last words on his deathbed in Joseph Conrad's novel "Heart of 
Darkness". It was inspired at the end of the 19th century by the 
excessive atrocities of colonial oppression in the Congo. Such 
interrogation requires accepting in principle the possibility of a 
connecting line that might exist in the history of violent 
expansionism. It demands an exploration, if and to what extent there 
are more than simply accidental coincidences between the colonial 
genocide in then "German South West Africa" and the holocaust unfolding 
"back home" in Germany over thirty years later. Depending on the 
outcome of such explorations, we need to readjust not only our minds, 
but also our historical understanding. Maybe the potentially scary 
implications of such insights are a contributing factor to the fierce 
resistance among large parts of the German public, to (re) open the 
chapter and have another look. 

More than this: If the Germans would have the courage and honesty to 
embark upon such an exploratory mission - what should then prevent 
other former colonial powers to deal with their past in a similar 
self-critical way? Maybe this dimension is another forceful factor 
which explains even more so than the possible monetary implications (in 
terms of reparations) at stake for the German public purse to accept 
such responsibilities. 

There might well exist complicity among the powerful, supported by a 
fraternity of a core group of European states with a similarly dubious 
imperialist historical track record. Such complicity, unfortunately, is 
not met by determined solidarity among the wretched of the earth. As 
victims they ought to challenge the continued injustices by their 
concerted and unified efforts to counteract the ignorance and arrogance 
of those in power on such issues collectively, instead of falling prey 
(once again) to the old system of divide and rule.