Was the Herero massacre unique?

[lord of the mark]

In so far as it was a deliberate massacre of an entire ethnic group, with the authorization of an agent of a European state. I cant think of any other instance, even by the Congo Free State.

[Jon Miller]

Can you tell me more about this? I don't know much, I am afraid to say.

JM

[lord of the mark]

Short version

Germany colonized SouthWest Africa, present day Namibia.

Encouraged German settlers, who were given the best land. Herero tribe rebelled, killed some settlers.
German general in charge said that any Herero found in the colony would be killed. Women and children would be driven into the desert.

Massive slaughter of Herero ensued. Some escaped the colony to neighboring Bechaunaland (present day Botswana) but given the desert conditions, this was rather difficult.

When word got back to Germany, Kaiser revoked the "kill them all" order. Instead surviving Herero were "interned" and assigned to settlers as forced labor. IOW back to somewhat more "normal" harsh colonial practices.

[Jon Miller]

Wow, that is pretty extreme policy. Like practices encouraged this.. but I don't remember it ever being policy.

JM

[VetLegion]

How do you mean "an entire group"?

Or did you mean "a specific group"?

We've had discussions about genocide in the Off Topic forum and the choice of words, it seems, is important.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion
How do you mean "an entire group"?

Or did you mean "a specific group"?

We've had discussions about genocide in the Off Topic forum and the choice of words, it seems, is important.

"The great general of the German troops, sends this letter to the Herero people. Hereros are no longer German subjects... All the Hereros must leave the land. If the people do not want this, then I will force them to do it with the great guns. Any Herero found within the German borders with or without a gun, with or without cattle, will be shot. I shall no longer receive any women or children; I will drive them back to their people - otherwise I shall order shots to be fired at them... No male prisoner will be taken. I will shoot them. This is my decision for the Herero people.

Signed:

The Great General of the Mighty Kaiser, Lt-Gen Lothar von Trotha. 2nd October, 1904. "

But no, the entire tribe was not wiped out, as some escaped the colony, and some in the colony were still alive when the German govt revoked the von Trothas order. The number killed was very large relative to the group size, however.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VetLegion
We've had discussions about genocide in the Off Topic forum and the choice of words, it seems, is important.

He actually didn't say the word "genocide".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

He actually didn't say the word "genocide".

Though I cant think of what would make it NOT a genocide. The intention was there, as well as the results. Unless you think that Von Trothas intention really WAS to drive them out of the colony, not to kill most of them. This wasnt Kosovo, with trains to the border lined up. Escaping the colony was in fact extremely difficult, IIUC.


" According to the 1985 UN Whitaker Report, some 65,000 Herero (80 percent of the total Herero population)"


However not all of those killed were killed pursuant to the Von Trotha order - some were killed in the course of ordinary military operations, and some died in the interment camps and slave labor conditions that actuall came AFTER the end of the policy of intentional killing. I dont know how many were actually killed pursuant to the Von Trotha orders.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Though I cant think of what would make it NOT a genocide.

Me neither, actually. But I wouldn't want this thread to be bogged down in semantics

This looks like common colonial techniques pushed to the extreme by a zealot local officer. The colonising powers in Africa regularly wanted to intimidate local communities, and also were eager to put them into one category or another.

As a result, there were plenty of smallscale massacres (where one village was entirely razed to warn others of what not to do), and there were plenty of excesses whenever a locality rebelles. Also, ethnical displacement was not uncommon, but more among the lines of getting them to a destination where they'd fuel the colonist economy. Finally, ethnical subjugation occured almost universally, as the colonist granted a bad role to some ethnical groups, and good roles to some others. It led to resentment not only against the colonist, but also between local communities.

It seems that when the Kaiser learned the intimidation and punishment of the Herero went beyond the pale, he ordered to bring it back to the normal circumstances of slave labour and subjugation.

[VetLegion]

Well, in my opinion it does qualify as genocide.

If you ask for other examples of colonial behaviour that just might (I'm not saying it was, but maybe a case could be made) be qualified as genocide, how about:

- Roman treatment of Helvetians?

- giving infected blankets to Indians (somwhere in North America, 17th century IIRC)?

- Russian treatment of Chechens post WWII?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Me neither, actually. But I wouldn't want this thread to be bogged down in semantics

This looks like common colonial techniques pushed to the extreme by a zealot local officer. The colonising powers in Africa regularly wanted to intimidate local communities, and also were eager to put them into one category or another.

As a result, there were plenty of smallscale massacres (where one village was entirely razed to warn others of what not to do), and there were plenty of excesses whenever a locality rebelles. Also, ethnical displacement was not uncommon, but more among the lines of getting them to a destination where they'd fuel the colonist economy. Finally, ethnical subjugation occured almost universally, as the colonist granted a bad role to some ethnical groups, and good roles to some others. It led to resentment not only against the colonist, but also between local communities.

It seems that when the Kaiser learned the intimidation and punishment of the Herero went beyond the pale, he ordered to bring it back to the normal circumstances of slave labour and subjugation.

which last I dont deny - this was NOT a genocide instigated by central authorities in Berlin. I never said it was. And yes, colonial authorities in many colonies committed massacres, discriminated among different ethnic groups, and moved groups from place to place.

But this is the only instance I know of, in the modern history of Africa, where the acting colonial authority actually attempted the complete destruction of an entire ethnic group. It thus stands out from routine colonial practice.

I am not suggesting that the 2nd Reich was the moral equivalent of the 3rd, or that the Kaiser should considered as "untouchable" for memorialization as certain other historical figures are. I was only suggesting, back in OT, that if the question is "who did the 2nd Reich commit genocide against?" there is in fact an answer, and the proper answer is the Herero.

I dont see an equivalent for Belgium, or France. Looking at my own countrys dreadful history wrt american Indians, which did include massacres, and forced ethnic movements, and in some instance deliberate attempts to wipe out particular ethnic groups by private citizens, I cant think of an equivalent situation were a military officer with the level of authority of a Von Trotha directed the complete destruction of a native ethnic group.

The only situation I can think of that comes close, by a western country, post-Enlightenment, is the extermination of the Tasmanian Aboriginies. Who were a smaller group, and that was a good bit earlier (1840's, I think) (oh, and I think there were a couple of examples in Latin America)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Well, in my opinion it does qualify as genocide.

If you ask for other examples of colonial behaviour that just might (I'm not saying it was, but maybe a case could be made) be qualified as genocide, how about:

- Roman treatment of Helvetians?

- giving infected blankets to Indians (somwhere in North America, 17th century IIRC)?

- Russian treatment of Chechens post WWII?

Rome is just a way totally different era. Plenty of mass murders way back in those days.

The Small Pox blankets were used by General Amherst during the Pontiac Rebellion. While he was a Brit general, my country gets no pass - Gen Amherst was particularly popular with the American colonists. OTOH, he passed the blankets out, IIUC in an attempt to break a siege, not to wipe out a tribe.

As to the USSR under Stalin, I do consider him a genocidaire (I lean at least partly toward the Robert Conquest interpretation of the Ukraine famine) but thats really a totally different historical context, and deserves its own thread.

Just to clarify - when I said unique, i was thinking unique in the history of European colonization in Africa, NOT in world history, (I would think it obvious there have been others genocides in world history). It was really a direct response to something Spiff said in OT.

[Buck Birdseed]

The Tasmanian Aborigines were wiped out by british colonists, with some sort of semi-official sanction, I believe.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Indeed they were, at first. However in the latter stages there were spirited attempts on the part of the colonial authorities to save them- but disease and sheer depression finished them off.

The Ache Indians of Paraguay were nearly wiped out in the latter half of the 20th century.

[Terra Nullius]

As far as I understand, the 'extinction' of Tasmanina aborigines is a myth.

And I don't believe the opression ever had the purpose of exterminating them. It was more a case of blind cruelty than deliberation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Aborigines

The Tasmanian Aboriginals are the indigenous people of the island state of Tasmania, Australia. (Aboriginal name: lutrawita)

20th century historians previously held that they had become extinct with the death of Truganini in 1876, but this is no longer the accepted view.

Present-day Tasmanian Aborigines claim heritage from several groups:
The Palawa claim their heritage from settlers and Mannalargenna's daughters. Some Palawa are linked to a Bass Strait Islands heritage.
The Lia Pootah are descended from unrecorded Aboriginal women, who partnered with European convicts, sawyers, soldiers, free settlers and farmers.
The Pungenna community claim direct descent from an Aboriginal Tasmanian woman who married a man of mainland Aboriginal, Torres Strait and European descent.