Prempeh I: The Last Asantehene Before British Colonization

prempeh_i
Asantehene Prempeh I

Prempeh I was the Asantehene (King) of the Kingdom of Ashanti. He was born as Prince Kwaku Dua III Asamu of the Kingdom of Ashanti, and he took the name of Prempeh I upon ascension on the throne at the young age of 16. His reign was a troubled one as it fell during the time of British invasion/colonization of the Gold Coast. In essence, he was the last king of the Kingdom of Ashanti before the Gold Coast fell under British protectorate.

Europeans were already installed in the region and had been trading on the coast since the 15th century for gold and slaves (as we saw with the slave castles of Elmina and Cape Coast). By the beginning of the 19th century, the British government decided to formalize its control of the Gold Coast. They dispatched a force to conquer the Ashanti. They only won the war against the disciplined Ashanti because of the superiority of their artillery and rifles over the traditional muskets of the Ashanti. Once in Kumasi, the capital, the British hastily looted the royal palace and burned the town to the ground. The defeated Ashanti had already released their prisoners and subsequently were forced into agreeing to a treaty to give up claims on coastal territories, to cease the practice of human sacrifice and to pay a huge indemnity of 50,000 ounces of gold. This was known as the Wolseley’s expedition. The Gold Coast was then declared a Crown Colony.

Elmina 16th century
16th Century map of West Africa with Fort Elmina

Having lost their invincibility in war, the Ashantis were now faced with rebelling neighboring tribes, and the Ashanti confederation was descending into civil war. The Ashanti had become so weak that, in 1888, they asked the British governor to send an arbitrator from the coast to decide who, amongst rival claimants, should be the next Asantehene. The governor’s delegate decided in favor of the 16 year-old Prempeh. But Prempeh I turned out to be no puppet and refused to agree that Ashanti should become a British Protectorate.

Asantehene Prempeh I began an active campaign of the Ashanti sovereignty. The British offered to take the Kingdom of Ashanti under their protection, but Asantehene Prempeh I of the Kingdom of Ashanti refused each request. Asantehene Prempeh I stated, “My Kingdom of Ashanti will never commit itself to any such policy of protection; Ashanti people and the Kingdom of Ashanti must remain an independent sovereign state as of old, and at the same time be friends with all white men“.

prempehi_1
Prempeh I and his suite in the Seychelles (taken by F.A.L. Ramseyer) ca 1900-1903

Still wary of the French in Ivory Coast and alarmed by a resurgent Ashanti, the British now (1894) “remembered” that the Wolseley indemnity had never been paid. Prempeh I tried to appeal directly to a fellow sovereign, Queen Victoria, and sent an embassy to London to plead his cause. But the British government refused to give his delegates an audience for almost a year and mounted another elaborate British army expedition to Kumasi. Prempeh I refused to allow the Ashanti to fight, partly because of the memory of the Wolseley expedition and partly because of the British support for him during the succession dispute. Instead, he diplomatically greeted the troops as his guests when they marched into Kumasi, in January of 1896. The British governor arrived and coldly received Prempeh I and his chiefs. Prempeh I desperately tried to placate the invaders and to the horror of his people, he demeaned himself by prostrating himself before the governor in a sign of submission. The governor’s only response was to demand the gold promised to Wolseley. Prempeh could not provide such a huge indemnity at once but offered to pay in instalments starting with 680 ounces as a down payment. This was refused and then, to the astonishment of the Ashantis, Prempeh and some of his main chiefs were suddenly arrested.

Prempeh I’s place was looted. His throne is still displayed in the Royal Signals Museum at Blandford in England. The abducted Asantehene, Prempeh I, some of his relatives and advisors were first taken to Elmina for about a year, then to Freetown in Sierra Leone until 1900 when, upon the outbreak of Yaa Asantewaa (story for another day), the British feared proximity and sent the royal party to the Seychelles, in the Indian Ocean.

Once there, Prempeh I spent time in his villa on Mahe, the largest of the Seychelles’ island in the Indian Ocean. Prempeh I’s villa, and 16 new wooden houses with sandy floors and roofed with corrugated iron-sheets were built in Seychelles and allocated to the various Asante’s nobles. The place was called the Ashanti Camp. Prempeh made an effort to educate himself in English and made sure that the children received education.

prempehi_back-in-kumasi
Prempeh I reinstated in Kumasi in 1926 (Source: thekingdomofAsante.com)

On 27 December 1924, Prempeh I and the other remaining members of the exiled Ashanti court were allowed to return to Ashanti Kingdom. Upon his return, and to appease the Ashanti people, the British created for Prempeh I the official position of Kumasehene in 1926, position which he held until his death in Kumasi, Ghana, on 12 May 1931. He was succeeded by his heir apparent Prempeh II of the Kingdom of Ashanti.

Prempeh I was definitely a king caught between trying to hold the sovereignty of his people, and keeping peace, while working with the British invader peacefully. Was his approach the correct one when faced with a greedy, heartless, and treacherous opponent? For more information, please check out Kreol magazine, The Kingdom of Asante, asantekingdom.org websites which are full of great articles.

Deportation of African Heads of States

prempeh_i
Prempeh I of Ashanti Kingdom

History repeats itself! Over 100 years ago, African Heads of states, Emperors and Kings, were deported by European colonizers for defending their people, lives, independence, land, livelihood, and themselves. Some were killed, and others were exiled. In those days, they were deported to other territories in Africa, far from their lands. Today, 100 years later, they are being deported to the Hague or to some other African lands again. Here are a few, and I am sure you know others.

Prempeh I, Asantehene of Ashanti Kingdom deported to Seychelles in 1896 by British forces. His throne is still displayed at the Royal Signals Museum in Blandford, England. He was allowed to return after 24 years in exile.

asantewaa
Yaa Asantewaa of Ashanti Kingdom

Queen Yaa Asantewa of the Ashanti Kingdom was deported to Seychelles in 1902 by the British. She arose her people to fight against the British. She died in exile.

Samori Toure, Founder and leader of the Wassoulou Empire, was deported to Gabon (on an island of the Oogoue) in 1898 by the French. He died in exile.

Samori
Samori Touré

Behanzin, King of Dahomey,was deported to Martinique and then later Algeria by the French. He died in exile in Algeria in 1906.

The Oba of Benin Kingdom deported to Calabar by the British in 1897. He died in exile.

Gungunyane, King of Gaza in Mozambique, first sent to Lisbon, and then later to the island of Terceira on the Portuguese Azores. He died in exile in 1906.

Behanzin, the Last King of independent Dahomey
Behanzin, the Last King of independent Dahomey

Cheikh Amadou Bamba, of Senegal, deported to Gabon in 1895 by the French. He was brought back 7 years later in 1902, but deported to Mauritania in 1903 for 4 years, before being brought back to Senegal. He died in Senegal.

Nowadays, Laurent Gbagbo, President of Côte d’Ivoire, deported to the Hague in the Netherlands 2011 by the French and the Ivorian Ouattara. He is still there.

Laurent Gbagbo
Laurent Gbagbo

Charles Ble Goude, Youth Minister of Côte d’Ivoire deported to the Hague in Netherlands in 2011 by the French, and the Ivoirian Ouattara. He is still there.

Moussa Dadis Camara, President of Guinea, shot and almost left for dead, deported to Burkina Faso(let’s call the cat by its name). …

And the list goes on… How long will it last? Can we not judge our people ourselves? Is this a choice by the people for the people? Are we really independent?

Africa’s Independence: the case of Gabon’s Presidential Election 2016

gabonAbout 6 years ago, most African countries, particularly those in Francophone Africa, celebrated 50 years of independence. Yes… we were all told how many of them fought for their independence, how some of our forefathers bled to death, were killed, to get a chance to march proudly as Africans. We all cheered, and proclaimed ourselves independent. Then, a few months later, starting on 16 December 2010, the light shined on our “dependence”. On that fateful day of 11 April 2011, when the French army bombed the presidential palace of Cote d’Ivoire (and had been bombing all state institutions for over 10 days without any UN mandate and no declaration of war) and dragged its president and first lady in front of the world like mere criminals. In February 2011, NATO and the UN issued an order to bomb Libya and its institutions because Kadhafi was supposedly killing its people… They bombed Libya, killed, and uprooted its people. Today, 5 years later, the people of Gabon are now witnesses to their “obvious dependence” to France. Yes… you heard me right: these countries with that slave currency called FCFA are vassals of France, and today more than ever it has been made clear to us. “Vassals” you asked? “How come? we are independent?”… well, explain to me why a sovereign country with laws, institutions, and a constitution, will not be able to handle elections without meddling from France as was the case in Cote d’Ivoire in 2010 and currently in Gabon in 2016.

gabon3After I heard the French prime minister tell the Gabon president that he needed to have the elections recounted “bureau de vote par bureau de vote”, I thought: could the president of any African country ask the French people to recount their elections? Could the president of any African country tell the French president that he needs to pack his bags and let someone sit on his seat because he did not win the elections fair and square? Well, for starters, elections in Europe, and in America are usually won in the 50-55% range, and nobody says: “the country is divided in the middle”. Second of all, no candidate proclaims himself president before the results of the elections are announced by the constitutional court or supreme court of the country, like we just saw in Gabon. Third, no African ambassador to a European country or the African union calls the headquarters of the opponent or drags the person supposed to read the elections’ results to a hotel the day/hour he is supposed to read (Cote d’Ivoire 2010, where the French and US ambassadors took Mr. to Hotel Ivoire, headquarters of the opponent to read the results of an election). Fourth, nobody, and I mean nobody, goes to TV to issue warning to Bush or Gore to let go because they lost or won. Nobody sullies the constitution of another country. However, for the past 6 years, we have seen the constitutions of African countries being trampled upon by France, the European Union, NATO, and the US. Now, during hurricane Katrina when countless Americans were dying and their government was not raising a finger, did we Africans bomb their land? Did anybody go to the UN security council and say this is outrageous? Did anybody even talk? Did we interfere in that country’s government, and laws? In November 2015 when there was a terrorist attack in France, did the UN security council say to Francois Hollande: “you are destroying that country, your security is not tough enough, basta … we will take it from here”? NO

Libreville today
Libreville today

SO now when I hear French ministers having a say in the Gabonese elections, and some French journalists telling us “prior to these elections, Ali Bongo reached out to the Americans, looking for a rupture with France, how dare he?” I say “are we really independent?”

 

Swiss Firms poison Oil destined for Africa

oil3I had to say a few words about the latest news that Swiss firms have been refining oil destined for Africa with levels of sulfur at least 200 times higher than in Europe. Sulfur is associated with heart disease, lung cancer and respiratory problems. Astounding isn’t it? But what is astounding to me is really why do countries who produce oil choose to refine it elsewhere and then import it back? Some will say that they are too poor to refine it; then why not train your own engineers to that effect; isn’t the cost of shipping it to Europe, then importing it back from European traders not high? Do you really think that those European companies responsible for refining it will not give you back trash for a lesser price? Who/What guarantees the quality? Well, those guilty Swiss companies claim that the regulations of African countries are too lax, and so they have done nothing wrong (so basically if they know something is toxic and has been banned everywhere, but Africans don’t know it, they will sell it to them). Here are a few excerpts from articles on the BBC, and AllAfrica. The maps are from BBC via UNEP.

Swiss firms have been criticised in a report for their links to the African trade in diesel with toxin levels that are illegal in Europe.

[…] Why are regulations so lax?

The picture is changing but there are still several African countries which allow diesel to have a sulfur content of more than 2,000 parts per million (ppm), with some allowing more than 5,000ppm, whereas the European standard is less than 10ppm.

africa_sulphur_2016Rob de Jong from the UN Environment Programme (Unep) told the BBC that there was a lack of awareness among some policy makers about the significance of the sulfur content.

For a long time countries relied on colonial-era standards, which have only been revised in recent years.

Another issue is that in the countries where there are refineries, these are unable, for technical reasons, to reduce the sulphur levels to the standard acceptable in Europe. This means that the regulatory standard is kept at the level that the refineries can operate at.

Some governments are also worried that cleaner diesel would be more expensive, therefore pushing up the price of transport.

But Mr De Jong argued that the difference was minimal and oil price fluctuations were much more significant in determining the diesel price.” (Source: BBC)

Speaking with journalists in Abuja, the Executive Director, ANEEJ, Mr. David Ugolor, tasked the federal government to pay serious attention to the dangers posed to the health of citizens by these Swiss commodity trading companies, Vitol and Trafigura.

He argued that due to poor regulatory activities, foreign companies like Vitol and Trafiguratake undue advantage of weak fuel standards in Africa to produce, deliver and sell diesel, petrol and gasoline, which damage the health of the people.”

According to Ugolor, the Swiss companies’ “business model relies on an illegitimate strategy of deliberately lowering the quality of fuels for gain.

Using a common industry practice called blending, Vitol and Trafigura and their conglomerates mix cheap and toxic intermediate petroleum products to produce what the industry calls African Quality fuels.

africa_sulphur_2005These products contain higher levels of Sulphur and other harmful poisons that can never be found in Europe and the United States.”

The ANEEL Executive Director contended that byselling such fuel and diesel at the pump in Africa, the traders increase external air pollution, causing respiratory disease and premature deaths.

“We all know that poor air quality poses serious risks to public health. As air quality declines, the risk of stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic and acute respiratory diseases increases for residents of cities where the people rely on diesel to power their means of production.”

Ugolor maintained that the dirty fuel shipped to West Africa by Vitol and Trafigura are known to burn very fast, equally leading to huge economic losses to vehicle owners in the African sub region.

“It is impossible to continue to remain silent about this problem, especially for the short and long term repercussions on the health and economy of our people.” (Source: AllAfrica)

 

 

European-Only Neighborhoods in African Cities before Independence

Africa_map1
Africa

As a note, I recently learned that before independence in African countries and probably in all European colonies around the world, there were “European / white-only” neighborhoods and “Indigenous” neighborhoods – imagine my surprise: it is your country and you can’t go into parts of it! You were born in a city, but you cannot go to certain neighborhoods even if that neighborhood is the burying ground of your family. Furthermore, to go into the European neighborhoods, one needed a pass (like during apartheid in South Africa)! In Douala, the biggest city of Cameroon, the European neighborhoods were Bonanjo, Bali, and Bonapriso. In Accra, Ghana, it was Christiansborg, and Victoriaborg. Which were the “European-only” neighborhoods in your city?

Final African Tally at the Rio 2016 Olympics

Rio2016_145 medals for Africa this year. A record. Wayde Van Niekerk, the South African, being the first African to win a gold medal in sprint, and also broke the world record established by Michael Johnson in 1999 on 400 m. Ethiopian Almaz Ayana also broke the 1993 record in 10000m.  Here are the remaining medals from the tally I published before the end of the games.

Cheikh Salla Cisse gave Côte d’Ivoire its very first Gold medal (in less than 80 kg Taekwondo men)

 

Cisse1
Cheikh Salla Cisse

Caster Semenya – 800 m women (South Africa) – Gold

 

Ruth Gbagbi – Taekwondo less than 67 kg women (Côte d’Ivoire) – Bronze

Francine Niyonsaba – 800 m women (Burundi) – Silver

Margaret Nyairera Wambui – 800 m women (Kenya) – Bronze

Nigeria men Soccer team – Bronze

Semenya
Caster Semenya

Eliud Kipchoge – Men Marathon (Kenya) – Gold

Julius Yego – Men Javelin (Kenya) – Silver

Almaz Ayana – 5000 m women (Ethiopia) – Bronze

Hagos Gebrhiwet – 5000 m men (Ethiopia)- Bronze

Feyisa Lilesa – Men Marathon (Ethiopia) – Silver

Taoufik Makhloufi – 1500 m Men (Algeria) – Silver

Abdoulrazak Issoufou Alfaga – over 80kg Taekwondo men (Niger) – Silver

Oussama Oueslati – less than 80 kg Taekwondo men (Tunisia) – Bronze

Hellen Obiri – 5000 m women (Kenya) – Silver

Vivian Cheruiyot – 5000 m women (Kenya) – Gold

 

 

 

 

African Colors at the Rio 2016 Olympics

Rio2016_1Thus far, African colors have been flying high at the Rio 2016 olympics, with 31 medals. Here are the names and the medals by country. Congratulations to all the athletes. They make us proud!

Chad LeClos – 200 m freestyle (South Africa) – Silver

LeClos
Chad LeClos

Chad LeClos – 100 m butterfly (South Africa) – Silver

Shaun Keeling – Rowing (South Africa) – Silver   

Cameron van Der Burgh – 100 m breaststroke ( South Africa) – Silver

Dylan Sage – Rugby (South Africa) – Bronze

Seabelo Senatla – Rugby (South Africa) – Bronze

Lawrence Brittain – Rowing (South Africa) – Silver

Rudisha
David Rudisha

David Rudisha – 800 m men (Kenya) – Gold

Taoufik Makhloufi – 800 m men (Algeria) – Silver

Sara Ahmed – weightlifting women (Egypt) – Bronze

Mohamed Mahmoud – weightlifting men (Egypt) – Bronze

Hedaya Malak – Taekwondo women (Egypt) – Bronze

Marwa Amri – Wrestling – less than 58 kg (Tunisia) – Bronze

Ines Boubakri – Fencing (Tunisia) – Bronze  

Ayana1
Almaz Ayana

Almaz Ayana – 10000 m women (Ethiopia) – Gold

Vivian Cheruiyot – 10000 m women (Kenya) – Silver

Tirunesh Dibaba – 10000 m women (Ethiopia) – Bronze

Jemima Sumgong – Women Marathon (Kenya) – Gold

Mare Dibaba – Women Marathon (Ethiopia) – Bronze

Niekerk
Wayde van Niekerk

Wayde van Niekerk – 400 m men (South Africa) – Gold

Hyvin Jepkemoi – 3000 m steeplechase (Kenya) – Silver

Mohamed Rabii – Weight Welters men 69 kg (Morocco) – Silver

Faith Kipyegon – 1500 m women (Kenya) – Gold

Gensebe Dibaba – 1500 m women (Ethiopia) – Silver

Conseslus Kipruto – 3000 m men steeplechase (Kenya) – Gold

Paul Tanui – 10000 m men (Kenya) – Silver

Kipyegon1
Faith Kipyegon

Tamirat Tola – 10000 m men (Ethiopia) – Bronze

Luvo Manyonga – Long jump men (South Africa) – Silver

Sunette Viljoen – Women javelin (South Africa) – Silver

Henri Schoeman – Triathlon men (South Africa) – Bronze

Boniface Mucheru – 400 m hurdles men (Kenya) – Silver

Reclaiming African History: Gorée and the Slave Trade in Senegal

Goree_Le_fort_d'Orange_et_de_Nassau_à_l'île_de_Gorée_17th century
Goree Island: Fort of Nassau and Orange, 17th century (Wikipedia)

Today I will be talking about the island of Gorée, in Senegal. Located less than 4 km from the city of Dakar, Gorée island offers a sure route for ships. Since the 15th century, it has been the center of rivalries between diverse European nations which used it for slave trading. Locally known as “Beer” or “Ber” or “Bir” in Wolof, it was first named “La Palma” by Portuguese in 1444, with some ancient maps also showing the name “Beseguiche” for it. The Dutch navy named it “Goede Reede” or “Good Harbor” in 1588. In 1677, the island was occupied by the French.

Goree_Map_of_Goree
Map of Goree (Wikipedia)

Before I dive further into the atrocities of human trading on the island, I would like to address ideas circulated by some stating that the island of Gorée was never really used for slave trading and that slave trading had been done in Saint Louis in the north or south in Gambia. These claims were so outrageous that the Senegalese government sponsored an international conference on the history of the island, and researched and found original archives from the French Port of Nantes showing that between 1763 and 1775 alone, one port had traded more than 103,000 slaves from Gorée; this thus shows that Gorée was indeed at the epicenter of slave trading, and stating otherwise is an attempt at falsifying history. The first slaves were taken from Gorée in 1536, and the trade continued at least until 1848.

Goree1w
House of Slaves (Wikipedia)

Now back to the island itself. One of the most important if not the main stop on the island is the house of slaves. Of Reddish/pinkish color, this house was first built by the Dutch in 1776, and is the last standing slave house on the island. At the end of the 18th century, the island was a prosperous crossroad of merchants, soldiers, and administrators, with at its center slave trade. Today, it serves as a museum and a memorial to humanity. The upper part of the building like most slave houses was used by the Europeans who lived there; while the bottom part was used to house slaves packed on top of each other in humid, sordid, and disgusting rooms built for 15-20 people but housing sometimes over 100 people, while waiting to be taken to the Americas. On the bottom floor, there is a room used to pack young women among which the slave traders would come every night and choose those who will be used for their sexual pleasures; if any of these women were found pregnant from these traders’ visits, they were freed on the island or sent to Saint Louis. There were also rooms to house strong men, children, and women. There was also a dark tiny room where the most defiant ones were stacked on top of each other, and salty water was seeped through the walls to force dehydration and later death. The value of a man depended on his weight and muscles; the minimum weight was 60 kg. The value of a child depended on his/her denture, while that of a woman on her breasts.

Goree_Jeunes filles
Cell for young girls in the House of Slaves

The small size of the island made it easy for merchants to control their captives. The surrounding waters are so deep that any attempt at escaping would mean sure drowning. With a 5kg metal ball permanently attached to their feet or necks, a captured African who ever tried running away would surely drown in deep sea.

From the door of no return, the slaves were loaded onto ships which took them across the Atlantic. This was their last time on African soil.

Entire families were captured and brought to Gorée, but their destinations were seldom the same: the father could be shipped to America, while the Mother to Brazil, and the child to Haiti or the West indies. Separation was irrevocable.

Goree_Cellule
Cell in the House of Slaves

Not too far from the house of slaves is the castle which was used as a warehouse for millions of captured slaves.

After the abolition of slavery in 1848, the island’s population declined, with many moving to Dakar. Since 1978, the island is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Today the island of Gorée is a memorial to all those who were separated from their loved ones, their lands, their society, their culture, uprooted and sold like cattle across the globe. It serves as a reminder of humanity’s ugly past, and what it is capable of for capital gain, hatred, and greed. Gorée is and should remain all of that, but also a true reminder to future generations that mankind should be loved, and a man’s life is precious, not to be sold like cattle. Attempts by some to absolve themselves from their ugly pasts should not stop those who were hurt from remembering, for celebrating the lives of those who perished, who were uprooted, and those who survived. Truth is truth whether beautiful or not, it is truth, and remembering is acknowledging all the good those who lost their lives, those who survived, gave to the world, because America will not be America without the Slaves’s lives and hard labor; Brazil will not be Brazil without the blood of those slaves; France will not be France, or Great Britain will not be Great Britain without the sweat and blood of African slaves. So Gorée is a reminder of all of that, and should be cherished for it.

Have Germans finally acknowledged the Namibian Genocide?

Namibia
Flag of Namibia

Here is an excerpt of an article by Kwame Opoku from Pambazuka about Germany’s recognition (?) of the Namibian genocide. For the full article, go to Pambazuka.

========

[…] For a long time, successive German governments have sought to avoid taking responsibility for the genocide of the Herero and Nama of South-West Africa, now Namibia, in 1904-1908. …

_55970031_namacc
Herero people being enslaved in Namibia by Germans (Source: AFP/Namibia National Archives)

The attempt to deny historical evidence of German genocide was bound to fail in so far as all the elements of German responsibility have been fully documented in German official papers and writings of German scholars. The extermination order of the German General in South West Africa, General von Lothar should have been sufficient evidence of the declared intention to exterminate Herero and Nama: ” I say to the people: anyone who hands over one of the chiefs to one of our stations as prisoner shall receive 1,000 marks and whoever delivers Samuel Maharero will receive 5,000 marks. The Herero people must however leave the land. If the people refuse to do so, I shall force them with the Great Rohr [cannon”>. Any Herero found within the German borders, with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot. I no longer receive women or children. I will drive them back to their people or order them to be shot. These are my words to the Herero people. ‘The great General of the mighty German Kaiser.” Vernichtungsbefehl (Extermination Order) by the German commander, General Lothar von Trotha.

Nambia2[…] After what has been written above, Lammert concludes that: “According to present day international law, the suppression of the Herero uprising was genocide. International law stipulates that if acts are committed with intent “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such ”the criminal act of genocide has occurred Such is the interpretation of many, also German historians.”

At a Government press conference on 10 July, 2015, the question was raised as to whether, in view of the various pressures on the German government to define the massacres of the Herero and Nama as genocide, there was a chance the government might modify its position. Dr Schafer, Spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry, defined the Governments position as follows: “Firstly, the basis of all actions and for our political motivation is the guiding principle that the Federal Government-against the background of the brutal colonial war of Imperial Germany in South West Africa acknowledges Germany’s special historical responsibility towards Namibia and its citizens and especially towards the Herero, Nama, San and Damara. … “We Germans accept our historical-political and moral-ethical responsibility and the guilt incurred by Germans at that time. The atrocities committed at that time would today be termed genocide”.

Herero
Survivors of the herero genocide (Wikimedia)

[…] Frankly, I was surprised and worried by the various statements indicating that the Germans and the Namibians have been having negotiations and discussions aimed at finding “a common position and common language in dealing with the cruel colonial war of 1904-1908”. This is a remarkable statement. Does anybody really believe Germans and Namibians can find a common position and a common language regarding the cruel and inhuman atrocities of the Germans in South –West Africa? Is this really serious or is this intended to persuade the Namibians to get involved in a dangerous rewriting of history that would present the Germany in a less inhuman light? There are probably fewer aspects of recent African history that are as well documented as the German presence and atrocities in Namibia. What is there more for non-historians and politicians to discover and present as a common position and common language of the colonized and the colonizer, of the oppressor and the oppressed?

This can only be an attempt to modify the role of the perpetrator of atrocities and to make the victims partially responsible for the heinous crimes committed against them. The victim becomes involved in the criminal acts against him. Colonized victims cannot evaluate the events of which they were victims in the same way as the oppressive colonizers. …

Herero_chained
Chained Herero men (Wikimedia)

Could it be that the Germans, supported by the French, British, and Belgians and other former colonial powers are frightened about the effect of German recognition of genocide in Namibia? They would all like to avoid having to pay adequate compensation to their African victims and so urge the Germans to avoid setting a precedent; they are probably trying to find a formula, short of admitting genocide in Namibia that allows them to pay some compensation, less than what they would have to pay under the application of normal rules.

[…] Given what the Herero, Nama, San, Damara and all the Namibian peoples have gone through in their encounter with German colonial rule, it is amazing that these issues still remain unsolved. There is no way the Government of Germany can continue to evade assuming openly and fully the consequences of the 1904-1908 exterminations wars.

Germany in Namibia: the First Genocide of the 20th Century

Herero
Survivors of the Herero genocide (Wikimedia)

How many think that the first big genocide of the 20th century happened during world war II, and was the holocaust? If you thought so, then think again. The Holocaust was not Germany’s first genocide. The very first genocide of the 20th century occurred in Namibia, on the African continent. It was perpetrated by Germans on the Herero and Nama people of Namibia. It was extremely brutal and almost wiped out all Herero people. It was a campaign of racial extermination and collective punishment that the German Empire undertook in German South-West Africa (modern-day Namibia) against the Herero and Nama people. It took place between 1904 and 1907 during the Herero Wars. Today it is known as the Namibian genocide or the Herero and Namaqua genocide. For the longest time, the German government denied it until 2004 when they finally acknowledged and recognized for the atrocities they perpetrated to wipe out an entire race. However, they ruled out financial compensation for the victims’ descendants. They still refuse to officially name these actions as “genocide”.

Herero_chained
Chained Herero men

In total, between 24,000 and 100,000 Herero and 10,000 Nama died. The genocide was characterized by widespread death from starvation and dehydration due to the prevention of the retreating Herero from leaving the Namib Desert by German forces. Some sources also state that the German colonial army systematically poisoned desert water wells. Moreover, the Germans also tested the very first use of concentration camps on the Herero and Nama people.

Before the genocide, the tribe numbered 80,000; after it, only 15,000 remained. Enjoy the video below which tells it all.