PAUL G. CONWAY CURRICULUM VITA/Resume

ADDRESSES
Home Address:                           College Address:
1 College Park Drive                  410 Fitzelle Hall, SUNY College at Oneonta 13820
Oneonta, NY 13820                    Phone: (607) 436-3923:
                                                     Email: conwaypg@oneonta.edu

General background: Born in Bronx, New York; raised in Dumont, New Jersey
Military Service: U.S. Army Security Agency, Federal Republic of Germany
Overseas travel: Western and Central Europe, Central America, Southern Africa, Israel, Japan, Thailand

ACADEMIC BACKGROUND
1972 Ph.D. in Political Science awarded by Purdue University, Dissertation: An Analysis of U.S. Policy making and Decisions on Chemical and Biological Weapons.
1968 Master of Arts Degree in Political Science at Purdue University.
1967 Course requirements for MA in U.S. History fulfilled, Montclair State College, NJ
1963 Bachelor of Arts Degree at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan; undergraduate major in Social Science, minors in History and Physical Education.

PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT
1993-present Professor of Political Science
Department Chairman (1993-96)
State University of New York, College at Oneonta, New York
1987&78 Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Hartwick College, Oneonta, New York
1970-92 Assistant and Associate Professor of Political Science,
State University of New York, College at Oneonta, New York

 

ONGOING RESEARCH: Conducting interviews and collecting stories of rescuers in Bosnia (and most recently) in Rwanda to encourage reconciliation in those societies. See http://rwandablog.wordpress.com/

PUBLICATIONS:
Articles

-“Righteous Hutus: Can Stories of Courageous Rescuers Contribute to Rwanda’s Reconciliation Process?” was published in the July, 2011 issue of the International  Journal of Sociology and Anthropology  pp116-123.

http://www.academicjournals.org/IJSA/contents/2011cont/July.htm
- "Truth and Reconciliation in Post-Apartheid Namibia: The Road Not Taken," Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution (OJPCR)"
Issue 5.1   (Summer, 2003) http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/5_1conway.htm or,
http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/5_1conway.pdf
- "Political Culture, Hegemony, and Inequality Before the Law: Law Enforcement in Pakistan" with Fida Mohammad, in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management December, 2005 Volume: 28 Issue: 4 Page: 631 - 641.
- "A Myth for All Seasons: The Domino Theory and America's Longest War" in George D. Moss, ed. America in Vietnam A Documentary Reader with Original Essays. (Prentice Hall, 1991), pp. 181-200.
- "Drama in the Classroom," with Steven J. Gilbert (SUNY Oneonta, Psychology, in Teaching of Psychology 14:3, (Oct. 1987) pp. 171-172.
Manuscript: “Memories of Genocide in Namibia: A Quest for Some Appropriate Memorialization” (see below)

Additional publications include:
-- "Justice and Law Enforcement in Afghanistan: How Much is Likely to Change?"
with Fida Mohammad, (research note) in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management  Vol 26, No 1, (Spring 2003) pp 162-167
-- (Oneonta) Daily Star Op-Ed essay on terrorism in southern Thailand:
http://www.thedailystar.com/opinion/columns/2005/04/23/conw0423.html
-- "Memories, Memorials, and the Legacy of German Genocide in Namibia" in Oneonta Faculty Convivium, Vol XII (Fall, 1998 issue)
-- Introduction to
edited collection of 1996-97 McGraw Hill PRIMUS text publications, "Introduction to Government", pp i-xv (ISBN 0-390-14080-5)

BOOK REVIEWS: (Over 90 reviews in several publications, including the Annals of the American Academy of Social and Political Science, the American Political Science Review and especially, CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries and Colleges)  Reviews since 1999 include the following:

“Routledge Handbook of Ethnic Conflict” in the November, 2011 issue of CHOICE.

Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, The Politics of Genocide. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2010
in the November 2010 issue of CHOICE
Thierry Cruvellier, Court of Remorse: Inside the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
Madison: University of Wisconsin, 2010 in the March, 2010 CHOICE

Larry May, “Genocide: A Normative Account” (CambridgeUniversity Press, 2010) in CHOICE, 2010.

DVD review for Bullfrog Educational Films

John Pilger, “The War You Don’t See,” Spring, 2010

Phil Clark and Zachary D. Kaufman After Genocide: Transitional Justice, Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Reconciliation in Rwanda and Beyond.  New York: Columbia University Press, 2009 in the December 2009 issue of CHOICE
Cooper, Allan D.  The geography of genocide.  University Press of America, 2009.  255p appeared in the June 2009 issue of CHOICE.
Alex Thompson, U.S. Foreign Policy Towards Apartheid South Africa New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008 in the September, 2009 issue of CHOICE
Victor Peskin International Justice in Rwanda and the Balkans: Virtual Trials and the Struggle for State Cooperation New York: Cambridge University Press, in the January 2009 issue of CHOICE
Daniela Kroslak The French Betrayal of Rwanda (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2008) in the  October, 2008, CHOICE
Michael D. Goldhaber, A People’s History of the European Court of Human Rights
(New Brunswick: Rutgers, 2007)in CHOICE, January, 2008.
Jared Cohen, One Hundred Days of Silence: America and the Rwanda Genocide, Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007 CHOICE, June, 2007.
Michael Wessells, Child Soldiers: From Violence to Protection (Cambridge: Harvard, 2006) CHOICE May, 2007 and
Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, (New York: Routledge: 2006) in CHOICE, April, 2007.
Daniel Chirot and Clark McCauley Why Not Kill Them All? The logic and prevention of mass political murder (Princeton University: 2006, NJ) and, Cheryl Hendricks, and LwasiLushaba, eds. From National Liberation to Democratic Renaissance in Southern Africa (Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa: Dist. by Michigan State University Press, 2006), both in the December 2006 CHOICE.
Kevin Boyle Mary Robinson: A Voice for Human Rights  (Pennsylvania, 2006),  in CHOICE, October, 2006.
Mark Ensalaco and Linda C. Majka, “Children’s Human Rights: Progress and Challenges for Children Worldwide”, (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005 in CHOICE, March, 2006.
Mark R. Amstutz, "The Healing of Nations: The Promise and Limits of Political Forgiveness". (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005) in the April 2005 issue of CHOICE.
Tracey Jean Boisseau, "White Queen: May French-Sheldon and the Imperial Origins of American Feminist Identity," (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004) in Phoebe: Journal of Gender and Cultural Critiques 17:1 Spring 2005, pp119-120.
Benjamin Valentino, "Final Solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century". (Ithaca: Cornell, 2004) in CHOICE, October,  2004.
Mwesiga Baregu and Christopher Landsberg, eds. "From Cape to Congo: Southern Africa's Evolving Security Challenges" (London: Lynne Rienner, 2003) in CHOICE, December, 2003. 
Alexander Moseley and Richard Norman, eds. "Human Rights and Military Intervention"  (Ashgate Publishers, 2002) in CHOICE, Spring, 2003.
Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, eds. "Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil Military Gap and American National Security" (MIT Press, 2001) in CHOICE, April, 2002
 Richard Falk, "Human Rights Horizons," (New York: Routledge, 2000) CHOICE
Ann Kent, "China, the United Nations, and Human Rights: The Limits of Compliance," CHOICE
Review of internet web-site called "GlobalLink" for the August, 1998 CHOICE (pp. 164-5). This publication was a special supplement to Volume 35 which provides a "comprehensive, convenient, single reference source of CHOICE internet reviews," Republished in August 1999 special supplement to Volume 36.
Review of David S. Sorenson, "Shutting Down the Cold War: The Politics of Military Base Closure. (St Martin’s, 1998) CHOICE April, 1999 Vol 36, no. 8.
Review of Robert W. Gregg, "International Relations on Film," (UK/Lynne Rienner, 1998)
in Asian Thought and Society: An International Review (Fall, 1999)
Review of Yves Beigbeder, "Judging War Criminals: The Politics of International Justice”
(Macmillan,UK/St Martin’s, 1999) CHOICE, Fall, 1999
Ben Kiernan, “The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power and Genocide Under the Khmer Rouge,
1975-1979” (New Haven: Yale Univ Press, 1995) in Asian Thought and Society: An International Review (Sept-Dec 1996) XXI, 63; pp.19

TEACHING: (Course evaluations on file in Departmental Office)
Primary responsibilities: POLS 171 and 281: Comparative and International Politics and related 3 credit courses
POLS 284: U. S. Foreign Policy
POLS 382:International Law and Organizations

Introductory Political Science courses: Intro to Government (POLS 120) and US Government POLS 121
Secondary teaching responsibilities: (* indicates courses that I initiated and developed)
* POLS 279 Religion and Politics: Comparative and International Perspectives
* POLS 286:International Arms Races (mini course, 1978-1999)
* POLS 289:Apartheid in Southern Africa and the International Response(mini-course)1979-1994;
* POLS 290:Genocide and the International Response (mini-course)
* POLS 291: Israel and the Politics of the Mid East Region (mini-course)
* POLS 288:Human Rights Politics and International Law (mini course)
* POLS 287: America's Longest War - The Politics of U.S. Intervention in Southeast Asia
   (1978-1998 -- was among the first Vietnam War courses in USA)

* POLS 285: The Military in American Politics (mini course)
     - The two previous courses were restructured as
* POLS 292: "The American Military at Peace and War,"(1999-present)
Additional courses:
* POLS/PSYCH/SOC 278: Prisons and Prisoners (mini course - Visitations to NY state facilities)

* POLS/PSYCH 294: Special Topic: Obedience and Conformity in Public Affairs
    (with Dr. Steve Gilbert, Psychology Department, 1984, 1987, and 1991 Honor's Course).
   POLS 270: The Holocaust: Nazi Germany v. the Jews of Europe
   INTerdisciplinary 100: First Year Student Honors Seminar 1994 and 1998

PAPERS and Professional Presentations:

Paper presented to annual conference of New England Political Science Association, Newport,Rhode Island:

April 23, 2010; “Righteous Hutus: Stories of Courageous Rescuers and How They Contribute to Rwanda’s Reconciliation Process”

Paper presented to conference on Remembering War: Genocide and Other Human Rights Violations Concordia University, Montreal, Canada: November 7, 2009

“Stories of Courageous Rescuers During Rwanda’s 1994 Genocide: Can They Help?”

Paper presented at the 2007 IAGS (International Association of Genocide Scholars) conference in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (June 20, 2007) “PATHS TO RECONCILIATION: COLLECTING NARRATIVES OF ORDINARY PEOPLE AS RESCUERS IN BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA AND RWANDA”

(with Nejra Nuna Cengic) June 20, 2007.
Panel presentation to Center for the Study of the Presidency Student Symposium in Washington, DC. "Congress, the Courts and the Presidency," (Invited paper on "Foreign and National Security Policies for the New Millennium") March 14, 1998.
Paper presented to the (April) 1999 Pennsylvania Political Science Convention (Reading) and New York State Political Science Convention (Hofstra) entitled "Truth and Reconciliation: The Road Not Taken in Post-Apartheid Namibia."

* Paper presented to the 1994 NYS Political Science Association Convention, Albany, New York, entitled "Quest for a Genocide Memorial in Southern Africa: The German-Herero Legacy in Namibia"

* Paper presented at the NYS Political Science Association Convention held at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, April 1, 1989: "Teaching a Neglected Topic: Courage in Public Affairs," co-authored with Steven J. Gilbert
Invited participant in a week-long Scholar-Diplomat Seminar in the U.S. State Department during February 1974. Included were numerous interviews with bureaucrats on U.S. arms (development, distribution and limitations) polities and extensive conversations with diplomats and other scholars. Twelve scholars with professional interests in "Politico-Military Affairs" were invited.
Participant Two-day scholar-diplomat seminar reunion by invitation, June 1975, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C.
Invited participant U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C., Conference on U.S. Foreign Policies, April 6 & 7, 1983.
Participant, SUNY@Buffalo Conference, "America in Vietnam: A Reappraisal," September 29-30, 1978.
* Discussant: "U.S. Foreign Policy in the Nuclear Age," New York State Political Science Association Convention, Albany, New York, April 6-7, 1984.
* Panel Moderator and involvement in organizational activities for the SUNY Conversations in the Disciplines on "Space for War, Space for Peace," SUCO April 1986.
* Paper presented at the 1986 NYS Political Science Association Convention, New York City, entitled "Fidelity and Infidelity in the Superpower Empires: Grounds for Divorce."
* Panel presentation at the 1969 American Political Science Association Convention, "Systems Analysis in the Introductory American Government Course: The Audio-Tutorial Technique."
* Paper presented to the Conference on "Morality Among Nations" at Plattsburgh State College, Plattsburgh, New York, February 22-24, 1972: "The Moral Dimension in Foreign Policy Making: The Case of Chemical and Biological Weapons Decisions."
Invited Participant in the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society held at Dickinson College and at the U.S. Army War College in Dickinson, PA, October 1974.

GRANTS, HONORS, AND AWARDS

UUP Faculty Development Grant Award, 2006, 2007, 2008

College Research Foundation Grant, 2006-7

                                    Provost Faculty Development Research Grant Award 2006-7

National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Summer Seminar on "Comparative Imperialism" directed by Robin Winks, History Department, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, June-August 1984.
Graduate Research Initiative Grants, SUNY Oneonta, Spring 1993, 1999; 2006
United University Professions (UUP) Travel-Research Grant, Spring 1993, 1995, 1999
Walter B. Ford Research Grant, Spring, 1993
David Ross Fellowship in Political Science, Purdue University, Summer 1969.
National Defense Education Act (NDEA) Experienced Teacher Fellowship Program
    (Full-year graduate scholarship in Political Science) at Purdue University 1967-68
Coe Foundation Award: Summer Institute in American Studies
    at Bucknell University, Lewisberg, Pennsylvania, 1965.
Fifteen National Science Foundation (NSF) Chautauqua Short Courses (most recently with (Douglas Magrath, USFla) on Islam, 2004,  Jackie Smith, Globalization and George Lopez, International Economic Sanctions at SUNY Stony Brook, NYC campus, Spring, 2003; and Paul Bernstein, "Is the American Democratic System Truly Responsive?" Summer, 2000 at University of Washington, Seattle; Matthew Kerbel, "Media Politics in a Cynical Age," Spring, 1999 at Temple University, Philadelphia).

COLLEGE and UNIVERSITY SERVICE (since 1990)
(Service activities prior to 1990 listed on previous Vita on file in Political Science Department Office)
Chair, Political Science Department, 1993-1996.
Departmental representative to the College Senate 1984-1992; 1996-98; 2001-2006

College Standing Disciplinary Board, 2003-present
Grievance Chair, Oneonta United University Professionals Union (UUP);  2003-2007 Mediator 2007 to present
SUNY Senate Standing Committee on Student Life, 1998-2001.
Pre-Law Advisement Committee (Coordinator, 1986 to 1993).
Advisor to the Political Science Club, 1987, 1989 to 2004.
Advisor to campus chapter of Amnesty International 1989 to 1999.
Advisor to Pre-Law Society - 1987 to 1994.
Student Progress Committee - 1988 to 1989. Curriculum Committee 1990-April, 1991.
Student Affairs Committee 1990 to 1992 (Chair 199Standing Disciplinary Board (1992; 2003-present)
Academic Orientation Committee, 1989-1992.(Co-chair with Marilyn Helterline
Gulf Crisis Information Center, Advisory Committee, Spring, 1991
Vice President's Search Committee for Acting Dean of Science and Social Sciences, April, 1991
First Year Experience Committee (Dr. Margaret Maguire, Chair) 1991-1997
First Year Seminar Honors Section, Fall, 1994
College Life (experimental course for first year students),instructor
First Year Scholars Seminar (experimental honors program) 1995-1996
Chair of Search Committee for Director of International Education 1995
Presentation to Oneonta Faculty Convivium. December 2, 1995
Dean’s Advisory Council (Personnel recommendations to the Dean of Science and Social Science) 1997-1999

COMMUNITY SERVICE (since roughly 1990)
Chapter President, Amnesty International (Otsego-Delaware Counties), 1982, 1987-88;
Case Coordinator 1985 to 1990.
Mayor's Commission on Vietnam Veteran's Awareness Week - Fall 1988 to August 1989.
Dispute Mediator with Otsego County Conflict Resolution Center, Dietz Street, Oneonta.
(active mediator - June, 1989 to 1998) Agency susequently known as Mediation Services Inc.

Executive Board, League of Woman Voters 1992-1993)
Otsego County Early Probation Release Commission (1991- to present);
Mr. Thomas Heitz, Cooperstown and Mr. Michael Newell, Hartwick, Chairs).
Board of Directors,  West Kortright Centre (1998 to 2004) a tri- county cultural arts association.
****************************************************************************************************

****************************************************************************************************
 
 
                                                                            Memories of Genocide and Memorials in Namibia

A CASE STUDY OF THE GERMAN-HERERO LEGACY

IN SOUTH WEST AFRICA

 

 

 

Paul G. Conway

Political Science Department

State University College of New York at Oneonta

 

 

SYNOPSIS

Although the crime of genocide has occurred throughout history, the concept and the sense that it must be carefully documented came about in this century. In recent years the rationale for memorials to genocide victims has become widely appreciated. Whether or not such memorials should be established is a matter of public policy within nation-states. This essay is a case study of what was presumably the first instance of genocide in the 20th century, in the German colony of South West Africa (now  Namibia), and the aftermath of that event. My search for a national memorial to the Herero victims of genocide is detailed. The paper concludes with an attempt to explain the absence of any prominent monument, museum or national memorial to commemorate the catastrophe.

 

“The fact of genocide is as old as humanity."

-- Jean-Paul Sartre

 

"The Hereros ceased to exist as a people."

-- Report of German Military Historians, circa 1907

 

"Forgetting the extermination is part of the extermination itself."

-- Jean Baudrillard

 


Introduction

Although genocide - the most horrendous of crimes - has occurred throughout the course of history, the use of the word, the legal concept, and the sense that genocide should be carefully documented and analyzed, developed in the twentieth century.[i] The widespread sensibility that such events should be memorialized for social, psychological, and historical reasons is also relatively recent. During this century Armenians, Jews, Cambodians, Rwandans and other groups have been victimized by genocidal policies. In response to the most extreme example of genocide, the Holocaust, the awful events have been exhaustively documented and memorialized in national monuments and museums in several countries.  Other genocidal events have been memorialized as well.[ii]

Genocide poses a grave threat to international standards of civilized behavior. After a century marked by its horrors,[iii] one would hope that all such events would be memorialized. But they are not. Invariably, genocide memorials must be created within the boundaries of a state system. The memorials are invested with a national soul and memory;  the “collected memory” (as Young called it) is somewhat selective and subjective.[iv] Monuments and other memorials represent efforts to sustain a particular interpretation of an event in light of the nation's history.[v] Decisions regarding what, when, where, and what kind of memorials should be established are matters of public policy shaped by political realities as well as collected memory.  Presumably useful lessons can be learned about cultures and politics through investigations of how and why some societies choose to memorialize the victims of genocide and others do not.

What follows is a case study of what many scholars identify as the first incident of genocide in the twentieth century, and its aftermath.[vi] According to some researchers, the antecedents to the Holocaust itself were rooted in that catastrophic event.[vii] Unfortunately, the event is not widely known, except to academics and students of history.[viii] What happened? Has the event been memorialized? If there is a significant national memorial to the genocide victims, what is it like? If none exists, why is that the case?  This essay represents an effort to answer these questions, beginning with a summary of historical research on the genocidal event.

 

Background -- A Story of Genocide:

During the 19th century, the Hereros were the largest indigenous group in the center of the land that would eventually become Namibia. They were a pastoral people who had previously migrated from the northeast. They lived closely with herds of cattle that provided nutrition, a way of life, and even a measure of wealth in their culture. Rhenish (German Rhineland) missionaries who first proselytized and settled there during the middle of the century had limited success in converting Hereros to the Lutheran faith.[ix] The Hereros frequently came into conflict with the Namas (then called “Hottentots” by Europeans), another indigenous, pastoral group. There was no threat to the Herero way of life, however, until the 1890's, after Germany  colonized the territory. Berlin then provided incentives to encourage settlements and a modest military presence to protect them. Settlers, typically cattle ranchers, called the Hereros "baboons" and maneuvered to obtain their land and livestock. They enacted laws to restrict Herero activities and established courts that rarely punished Germans for crimes such as rape or even murder of native peoples.[x]

Politically, the Hereros had no central authority as they acknowledged several chiefs (called headmen) in distinct regions where they resided.[xi] Nonetheless the death of the most prominent Herero leader,  Kamaherero, in 1890, and the subsequent execution of his nephew and potential successor six years later, undermined the Herero’s ability to control their own destiny. After German colonial administrators maneuvered to put Samuel Maherero in an unprecedented political position of Supreme Chief, supposedly responsible for all of the Herero nation or “tribe”, their persecution and misfortune accelerated.[xii] Herero leaders became increasingly concerned about their losses of cattle and lands as well as the  degradation of their people. In 1903 they learned of a new German ordinance that would diminish their control of land and livestock. The Herero chiefs then conferred.


 

                                                                                   TABLE I

                                                         Selected Chronology of Namibian Political History

 

1884    Germany establishes colonial administration of South West African territory.

1892    Last (fourth) war between Herero and Namas ends with treaty.

1896    Eastern (Mbanderu) Herero rebellion crushed.  Chiefs executed by Germans.

 

************************************************************************************

1904    (January) Herero "Rising" begins with Chief Samuel Maherero's call for unified African rebellion against German rule.

 

1904    (August) Reinforced German military confronts main body of Herero nation in battle at Waterberg Plateau.  Herero forces slaughtered; survivors herded into desert.

 

1904    (October) German forces attack Herero survivors.  Nama rebellion begins with October 3 declaration of war by Chief Hendrik Witbooi.

 

1905    German pursuit of survivors ends.  Hereros lose property and rights; many thousands die from harshly forced labor and squalid conditions

************************************************************************************

 

1907    Nama guerrilla forces defeated by Germans.  Herero survivors and Namas dispersed in colonial work force and labor camps.

1915    German military defeated by British/South African forces.

1920    League of Nations mandate arrangement negotiated to provide for South African Administration of South West Africa territory.

1948    Afrikaner Nationalist Party wins control of South African government; Apartheid policies enforced in South West Africa territory.

1958    "Old Location" massacre of Windhoek/Katutura residents occurs as South Africa extends apartheid policies throughout territory.  Political struggle against regime commences with formation of Ovamboland Peoples Organization in 1959 which became South West African People's Organization (SWAPO) in 1960.

1966    United Nations General Assembly resolution declares South Africa should cease their administration of the territory.  SWAPO military struggle begins.  Subsequent UN activities endorse SWAPO and legitimize idea of Namibian state.

1978    United Nations Security Council Resolution 435 provides outline for negotiated end to war in Namibia.  Despite diplomatic efforts, war continues.

1988    F.W. De Klerk takes power in Pretoria; efforts to initiate political change in South Africa reverberate in Namibia.  Cease-fire declared.

1990    Elections conducted under supervision of UN observer forces.  SWAPO wins; Sam Nujoma becomes first President of Namibia.


The shaky relationship between the settlers and Chief Samuel collapsed early in 1904. Although he had been something of an opportunist and collaborator prior to then, Samuel announced that he would oppose the Germans with military force. He called for all Hereros, along with the Namas and other tribes, to cooperate in a united front against the Germans. The other Herero chiefs did respond to his plea but the Namas did not. The unified Hereros began their revolt with a commitment to honor Samuel’s pledge not to attack German women, children, or missionaries.[xiii]

After a series of Herero victories in small skirmishes, German settlers feared for their survival. The German military (Schutztruppe) was rapidly reinforced; eventually, almost 20,000 troops were provided to protect a total of less than five thousand settlers.[xiv] At that time the total number of Hereros was thought to be at least 80,000.[xv]

At the end of the autumn, Chief Samuel ordered the Hereros to withdraw and consolidate their forces, along with their families and livestock.[xvi] Customarily, Herero wives went into battle with their warriors to inspire them and tend to the wounded. Nonetheless, the result of this unprecedented consolidation reduced their mobility and increased their vulnerability.  It proved to be disastrous.

In Berlin, a  newly-appointed Commander-in-Chief, General Lothar von Trotha, was chosen to oppose the Hereros on the basis of ruthless but successful campaigns he had previously waged against rebellious forces in east Africa and China.  Von Trotha decided to track down, surround and confront the concentrated Herero force, in an effort to totally destroy them. The confrontation occurred in August of 1904 at the base of the Waterburg Plateau, part of an area also called Hamakari. Both sides were fully mobilized but Herero weapons were a poor match for the superior German rifles and cannons. Von Trotha deployed a wide ring or cordon of 250 kilometers to force retreating Hereros into the arid Omaheke “sand- veld” (contiguous with the Kalahari Desert) and prevent them from reentering the colony. The Hamakari battle and its aftermath caused massive devastation. Tens of thousands died. Most of the victims were Hereros.[xvii]

The official policy was to discourage atrocities but many were reported. According to one witness, a military guide, all who were captured, “men, women, and children, wounded and unwounded. . . were killed without mercy.”[xviii] The Hereros fled in panic. Von Trotha’s subsequent proclamation to Herero leaders on October 2,  demanded that, "The Herero nation must leave the country. . . every Herero tribesman, armed or unarmed, with or without cattle, will be shot. No women and children will be allowed in the territory; they will be driven back to their people or fired on.”[xix] Two days later he said, "The nation as such must be annihilated. . ."   He told his soldiers that he had, "no doubt that as a result of this order no more male prisoners will be taken.”[xx]

For ten months the Schutztruppe pursued groups of Hereros, denying their access to waterholes. The pursuit was somewhat haphazard but effective. Herero men were executed; women and children were chased towards to the desert. Without food or water, countless numbers died in the sandveld.[xxi] Eventually protests from Rhenish missionaries caused an outcry in Germany against von Trotha’s campaign. Less than a year after being awarded the Pour le Merite by the Kaiser, the arrogant General was dismissed from his command late in 1905.

A tiny fragment of the Herero population, including Chief Samuel, survived an arduous trek across the Kalahari Desert to what was then British Bechuanaland (now Botswana).[xxii] Elsewhere, dispossessed and desperate survivors were  rounded up and imprisoned in hastily constructed colonial facilities.  Colonists eagerly confiscated what was left of Herero land and livestock. The Hereros were stripped of all legal rights. Many were chained and branded “GH” (gefangene Herero).[xxiii] They were essentially put in a state of bondage.

Between 1904 and 1908, thousands of incarcerated Hereros died of starvation and disease. The prisoner of war facilities and labor camps were overcrowded to the point that they could not be supported adequately. The number of prisoners in the adjoining facilities actually surpassed the colonial populations of Windhoek and Swakopmund.[xxiv] Neighboring communities had limited resources to share. Undoubtedly many deaths then were unintended. Yet German settlers (unlike the missionaries who were never attacked by Herero warriors) had little sympathy for the surviving Hereros in the colony.[xxv]

The estimated number of Hereros who survived the calamitous events is based upon the official census taken in 1911. The count then was 15,130 Herero in the colony, much less than a quarter of their estimated population prior to the war.[xxvi]

The Namas, who belatedly began a rebellion against the Germans in October of 1904, also suffered great losses. Their numbers were reduced from approximately 15 to 20 thousand to less than 10,000.[xxvii] Their revolt was not connected to the Herero uprising and only indirectly connected to von Trotha's campaign to completely destroy the much larger Herero nation. Fighting in the south of the colony, the Namas persevered with guerrilla tactics for three years.  Although they suffered greatly, the documentary evidence does not suggest that they were victims of a deliberate war of extermination as were the Herero.

In the Official Military History written in 1907, German historians asserted that “the Hereros ceased to exist as a tribe.” Social scientists who  studied the Herero survivors and their descendants would concur. Karla Poewe, an American anthropologist, later concluded that the traditional Herero culture was virtually destroyed. She found none who remembered or were willing to recount the disaster.[xxviii] Among the surviving Hereros there were [xxix]many conversions to Christianity in the missionary stations, initially the only places where they could legally congregate and gain some external assistance. For many years their general condition remained desperate but their sense of collective identity was gradually resuscitated. The return of Chief Samuel’s body from Botswana after his death in 1923 provided the first occasion and opportunity for thousands of Hereros to assemble ceremonially in their own forum.[xxx] Annual memorial celebrations at his burial place (where other chiefs have also been buried) facilitated some revival of Herero cultural consciousness and opposition to colonial rule under a new regime.

Sequel: The emergence of the state of Namibia

After German colonists lost control of South West Africa during World War I, the territory fell into the hands of the British (and other) South African whites. The colony was subsequently administered as a League of Nations Mandate. As for the impoverished Hereros, their numbers gradually replenished during an extended period of subjugation. Meanwhile another group, the Ovambos, became the most politically prominent indigenous group in the territory. (The Ovambos had been ignored by most German settlers during the earlier period because previously there was little economic interest in the colony’s northernmost region where their population was heavily concentrated). Several years after World War II, the Afrikaner white minority took power in Pretoria, South Africa. Southwest Africa remained a mandate colony, administered as if it were a fifth, albeit lesser, province in the increasingly segregated Afrikaner republic.

There were numerous protests from Namibians to the United Nations pleading for action against the apartheid regime. Among the groups that resisted, the Herero Chiefs were most vociferous up until the mid 1950’s.[xxxi] One Herero leader in particular, Chief Hosea Kutako,­a survivor of the battle of Hamakari, gained widespread respect for his dignified opposition and articulate petitions to the UN.  But the peaceful protests had little impact.[xxxii]

The Pretoria government’s effort to rigorously accelerate apartheid policies in the colony led to major confrontations beginning in 1959. At the end of that year, the forced evacuation of (non-white) Windhoek residents to Katutura led to a bloody clash. Ovambo leaders such as Sam Nujoma organized political dissidents beginning in the early 1960's (with Herero and other groups represented as well). After Nujoma’s South West African People's Organization (SWAPO) established a military wing, an arduous, bloody struggle against South African troops commenced in 1966.[xxxiii] By then, dissidents had embraced the new name of Namibia. The United Nations endorsed the cause of SWAPO.

During the war for Namibian independence, Ovambos were in the forefront of SWAPO's struggle but they also predominated in the notorious Koevoet ("Crowbar"), counter insurgency forces organized by the South African military, as well. Torture and other human rights abuses were widespread. Many Hereros were involved and victimized by both sides.[xxxiv]

The climax to the struggle occurred in the late 1980s. The outcome was influenced by the intervention of Cuban forces in neighboring Angola but even moreso by political changes within South Africa. International economic sanctions caused a loss of confidence on the part of investors there.  The deteriorating economic situation led to the emergence of a reform wing in the Afrikaner National Party under F.W. De Klerk, which seized power from the more conservative old guard. De Klerk implemented policies that diminished the resolve and capability of Pretoria to continue the fight in Namibia. A UN-monitored cease fire was declared in 1988. At that point the demise of apartheid was imminent. Two years later Namibia finally became an independent republic.  SWAPO won the country's first elections and Sam Nujoma became President.[xxxv]

Today, Namibia appears to be a relatively optimistic African state.[xxxvi] The political system is   characterized as a relatively stable democracy although poverty is widespread. The country is  large,  roughly two and a half times as large as Germany (or California, USA), but very sparsely populated with less than 2 million people. The terrain is dry, with two major desert systems and a vast expanse of savanna and thorny, tropical scrub vegetation. There are significant reserves of diamonds, copper, and uranium. Among numerous African ethnic groups, the Ovambos are still, by far, the largest. They comprise approximately half of the total population. The Hereros are a significant ethnic minority with a population of approximately 95,000. Other groups include the Nama, Berg-Damara and Rehoboth Basters.  Most of the white minority of just under 100,000 speak Afrikaans; others speak English or German as a first language.  Those with primarily German backgrounds now number about 27,000.

Namibia’s Historical Memorials:

One might expect that many or most of the prominent statues and memorials in Namibia (and other African countries as well) would reflect the values and dominance of European colonists prior to the liberation of indigenous peoples.  The duration of independence for African states still does not approach the length of time they were administered as colonies; not even a decade has passed since Namibia’s liberation. On the other hand, one might now hope to find modest memorials to the most devastated victims of colonial conquest in a country such as Namibia.  My own search for a prominent  memorial to Namibia’s genocide victims began in Namibia’s somewhat cosmopolitan capital, Windhoek, with such an expectation and that hope.[xxxvii]

Several of the largest and most striking monuments in the country are located in Windhoek. Two of the national museums are also located there. The statues in particular emphasize the historical impact of the German colonial presence. The most prominent monuments are situated in the commercial heart of the city. One is the "Hottentot"  War Memorial (to Schutztruppe slain during the 1890’s) on the green grasses of tranquil Zoo Park. A much larger statue, which dominates the landscape above the city’s center, depicts a German cavalryman on the hilly lawns in front of a fortress called Alte Feste.  Plans are now being implemented to change the inscription at the base of that monument to German casualties.[xxxviii]

Alte Feste was a Herero prisoner of war camp  around the year 1906. The fortress structure now houses a museum. The emphasis in that museum is on cultural artifacts and SWAPO's political struggle for independence Significant  changes have occurred in recent years, however.[xxxix] There are now photographic displays of Herero resistance to German rule early in the century, located in the room adjoining the entrance. The other national museum, adjacent to the Archives and the Library, presents cultural, natural, and environmental phenomena, but very little related to Namibia’s political past.

To the west and south of Windhoek, in unique communities where the German language is spoken and the architecture suggests Europe at the beginning of the century, one can see more of Germany's historical impact. In  Luderitz, formerly a port facility and fishing  village where thousands of Hereros and Namas were transported en route to an infamous prisoner-of-war camp on nearby Shark Island in 1904, there are memorials to German soldiers. There are none to commemorate their African victims. In another coastal, resort community -- Swapkopmund -- there is an impressive museum which documents technological developments within the territory. One display there includes models and artifacts which characterize Namibia's indigenous cultures. A diorama of battles and numerous military weapons there suggests the intensity of many violent confrontations that occurred during the early colonial period. Not far from the museum, there is an imposing statue that memorializes the Schutztruppe who died in combat throughout the colony during the years 1904 and 1905.

Inland to the north there are several scenic towns with Old World architecture and atmosphere. One is Grootfontein, where there are well-preserved forts and war memorials that extol the accomplishments and triumphs of colonists and their defenders. Another town called Omaruru (a Herero name for sour buttermilk) was the site of an important skirmish between the Germans and Herero warriors. The Franke Tower, located there, is a monument that was constructed by German settlers in grateful appreciation to the Schutztruppe who arrived in time to protect them during the uprising of 1904. There is a modest Herero memorial there as well, but unrelated to the genocide. Herero Chief Wilhelm Zeraua was buried in Omaruru in the mid-19th century. Residents and visitors march to Zeraua's gravesite every year.

The most salient Herero memorials in the entire country can be found in the town of Okahandja. Okahandja is the administrative capital for the Herero people today. I traveled there twice, the second time accompanied by an official from the National Monuments Commission.  A very important memorial called  Otjiserandu, or Herero Day, occurs there annually.[xl] Thousands attend. One activity involves a ritual march. There is a  solemn procession of  Herero women (in the colorful, “traditional” Victorian dress adopted by some even before the mass conversions that happened after the 1904 disaster) and Herero men in military khaki (on horseback and on foot), to a small enclosed cemetery, well shaded in the midst of tall palms trees. Some of the most famous Maherero chiefs are honored there. Samuel Maherero’s gravestone (shared with two of his ancestors) is marked in three languages.[xli]

Elsewhere in Okahandja there are more modest Mbanderu graves of "Green-Flag" Herero chiefs. Most notably, there is the place where the proud Chief Kihamema was buried. Kihamema's resistance to German persecution and exploitation ended with his death in 1890. Six years later the execution of his nephew and intended successor, Nicodemas Kavikunua, led to the elevation of Samuel as paramount chief.[xlii] Yet another important Herero memorial, "Blood Hill," is located in this historically important yet now sleepy town. A concentration of large rocks commemorates the victims of an assault in 1850 by Nama warriors which resulted in many casualties, including hundreds of Herero women whose arms and legs were methodically  amputated by the invaders.

If there is any other historically significant place where one might expect to find a prominent memorial to the Hereros, it would be in the Waterberg/Hamakari area. The places of battle and a German graveyard are located today in what is now part of a major nature preserve, the Waterberg Plateau Park. It is now one of best known, large, public parks with Namibian wildlife and scenic splendor (although less known internationally than Etosha, further north).  The old Waterberg cemetery is isolated and austere in a tranquil, wooded setting. The yard is bordered by a waist-high stone wall with an unlocked iron gate. There are over sixty stones, many with more than one German name.  The symbolism is poignant in that humble setting.  A simple plaque marker on one side of the wall (in the German language only) was added by a German veterans' group in 1984.  It expresses solidarity with Herero soldiers who fell in battle.[xliii] In a modest annual ceremony, participants representing both sides of the battle meet in the graveyard to commemorate the event. If there are any Herero burial sites in the Waterberg Plateau Park they are obscure, if not forgotten.[xliv]

In the Hamakari beyond the plateau there is a small, remote Schutztruppe gravesite. It is located on one of several, large ranch estates in the area owned by German-Namibians. On that same estate is another remarkable site, but hardly noticeable without effort. There is a collection of large rocks,  piled together in the midst of heavy brush. It  is said to a mass grave.  Allegedly, it was marked by Herero warriors who returned there several years after their defeat.[xlv]

Again and again, the search for significant Herero memorials led to gravesites. There was clearly a bias or distortion of history in the existence and placement of such monuments. The traditional culture of the Hereros included an oral tradition which passed on information about the location of burial sites and great events, but there was no tradition of sculpted monuments prior to their conversions to Christianity. The Herero chiefs who were prominently memorialized were those who converted to Christianity rather than those who resisted pressures to convert. The German missionaries had their greatest success proselytizing after the Herero nation was virtually destroyed.[xlvi]

My search throughout much of Namibia thus failed to locate a single museum or prominent national memorial clearly dedicated to the Herero victims of German policies in the early 1900's. Ironically, the most noticable and visually impressive monuments and museums emphasize the sacrifices and contributions of Germans during that period. There are other memorials that mark the presence of the British and Afrikaners during the last periods of colonial rule. Yet the history that is landmarked is incomplete. Altogether there are over one hundred national monuments in Namibia today but there is no explicit memorial to the Herero victims of German colonial policies early in the twentieth century.[xlvii] The places and activities that engage the memories of many Hereros do not seem to promote a national consciousness of their historic sacrifice.  Society’s collected memory of genocide in Namibia is clouded.

Most of Namibia’s monuments are transcribed in one language; a small number are in two or three.  Most Ovambos, who comprise roughly half of the population, speak Kwanyama and related languages. Generally a large percentage of Namibians speak more than one language. Since independence, English has been declared the official national language, ostensibly to promote economic development (although fewer than 7% of Namibia's population use English as a first language).  If and when new memorials are designated, they are likely to be marked in several languages; for the foreseeable future most are likely to emphasize sacrifices made during the most recent revolutionary struggle.[xlviii]

It is reasonable to ask whether or not a museum or monument (meaning statuary or facilities previously associated with Western cultures) would be appropriate from a Herero point of view. There is no obvious answer because the Hereros today constitute a very diverse population in Namibia. A somewhat traditional style of life with a livestock-oriented economy has been revived in rural areas.[xlix] Many Herero still identify with so-called traditional chiefs or leaders, who sometimes dress ceremoniously in formal military fashion. But others, especially  in urban areas, eschew  the "traditional" costumes and activities. There are other divisions among the Herero as well,[l] so one must assume it would take a good deal of time and effort for any consensus to develop among them on the subject of a genocide memorial.

Why is there no prominent genocide memorial in Namibia?

An outsider would be presumptuous to suggest how thoughtful people in a foreign land should  interpret and represent their own history.  There is no intent to do so here. Perhaps one can come to an  understanding that many in Namibia came to ignore or neglect this one, very significant event in their tumultuous history. As late as 1980, at the outset of Namibia’s last decade of struggle for independence, historian Jon Bridgman wrote, “few Hereros today have more than a hazy idea about their national past, and even fewer Africans know anything about the Herero revolt.”[li] There are signs that this situation is changing in recent years. After suggesting several hypotheses about why no prominent genocide memorial to the Hereros exists in Namibia today, I conclude with some thoughts on the functions of genocide memorials with reference to national and international perspectives.

One point that becomes evident in discussions with many Namibians is that the issue of genocide, per se, is not resolved within the country itself. The issue is potentially quite controversial there, despite what seems to be a consensus among scholars elsewhere. Although Namibians scholars acknowledge that the Hereros suffered catastrophic losses under German rule, some skeptics among them have raised interesting historiographic questions as to whether the most dreadful events were really a result of genocidal policies.

The most intrepid (and controversial) skeptic in Windhoek to raise provocative questions about the Herero disaster was Brigitte Lau. As the head of the National Archives prior to her accidental death late in 1996, Lau attempted to refute the consensus of genocide scholars on a variety of points. In academic publications and elsewhere,[lii] she argued that there is not enough clear, reliable data to corroborate the allegations of German genocide. She doubted that there was evidence of a coherent and implemented colonial genocide policy and whether German forces had the actual capability to destroy the Herero nation, regardless of von Trotha’s proclamations.[liii] The most important analytical problems that she identified were in regard to the shaky statistics that many mainstream scholars take for granted. The numbers of Hereros prior to 1904, the numbers of Hereros who were killed in the battles of 1904-05, and the numbers of Hereros who survived thereafter, are all questionable.[liv] The posing of such academic questions in Windhoek has been labeled genocide “denial” elsewhere but some such points do warrant careful consideration.[lv] Some of the skeptics have argued that not even von Trotha, much less other administrators, deliberately intended to “annihilate” or exterminate the Hereros in a literal sense.[lvi]

It is certainly true that there was no careful census nor was there even a systematic (in the modern sense) survey of the Herero population prior to 1904. What cannot be refuted however, is Berlin's calculated selection of von Trotha, support for his clearly stated intentions to force the Herero nation to leave the country,[lvii] the military campaign to cordon off the Omaheke which lasted until mid-1905, and subsequent colonial policies that decimated the Herero population. The dreadful consequences of German military and colonial policies, regardless of reliable statistics, are also irrefutable.[lviii]

The most prominent Herero academic in Windhoek is the Vice Chancellor of the national university. Professor Peter Katjavivi researched the history of resistance to colonial rule in Namibia.[lix] Although he avoids explicit use of the term genocide he does not question the intent of German policies to annihilate the Hereros and the statistics that suggest that 75-80% of their population was lost in the catastrophe. Thus Katjavivi’s  conclusions on the question of genocide fall  within the mainstream of scholarship outside of Namibia and are consistent with the preponderance of evidence on the subject. As an active participant and leader on the National Monuments Council in Windhoek, Katjavivi is one of several with potential to advocate a memorial to to the Herero nation that might be appropriate in the contemporary cultural context.

Arguably, the passage of many decades since the destruction of the Herero nation did diminish the sense of the historical significance of that event in Namibia. The long war for national independence that placed Ovambos (rather than Hereros) at the forefront of that struggle partly explains the lack of activity related to Herero memorial up until quite recently.

Presumably many Hereros know little about the early colonial period of the country's history although it is now taught in most of their public schools.[lx] In recent years there appears to be growing interest in the subject.[lxi] The idea of a national Herero memorial, not necessarily a genocide memorial, is for the first time being seriously discussed at the National Monuments Council offices, even though it is not yet a subject of national debate. At present however the Council’s priority is to promote the establishment of a more prominent memorial to Hosea Kutako, the famous Herero leader who died in 1970, at the age of 104.[lxii]

Ethnopolitical realities and historical memory:

Some of the most immediate symbolic needs of Hereros are provided by the annual parades and ceremonies which involve present-day chiefs and elites in towns such as Omaruru and Okahandja. The symbolic security of the German-Namibian minority is enhanced by the rich store of monuments and museums in places such as Swakopmund, Grootfontein, and Windhoek. A handful of representatives for both groups attempt to promote conciliation during annual August ceremonies at the Waterberg Plateau. Herero leaders participate and cooperate with German-Namibian veteran's groups that finance the event at the Schutztruppe graveyard.

The lack of any prominent national memorial, museum, or public collection of documents centering on the Herero disaster that occurred in the early l900's, may well be a consequence of the collective weakness of the Hereros throughout most of Namibia's troubled political history. Today, the Herero are a significant minority in Namibian society.  Many are associated with the DTA, formerly the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance. Ironically perhaps, Germans-Namibians are an important element in that party along with Herero and other ethnic groups. Initially, the DTA was secretly financed by the South African government prior to Namibia's liberation. Since then, it has developed as a conservative coalition which provides a loyal (albeit weak) opposition to SWAPO in the parliament. An effort to create a national memorial to honor Hereros who died at the hands of Germans might destabilize the DTA coalition.

Given the potential for ethnic conflict rooted in Namibia's history and the unequal distribution of wealth along racial lines, many there express the political need for a collective sense of unity.[lxiii] As Young stated, “memorials remember the past according to a variety of national myths, ideals and political needs.”[lxiv] It can be argued that demands for a general memorial to a particular group might be divisive in domestic politics, even beyond the dynamics of the DTA party. That perspective was expressed by one official at the National Monuments Council.  He stated that virtually every ethnic group has been victimized at some stage in the country's history.[lxv] Debates about new memorials may encourage parochial attitudes that could prove economically and politically costly in a poor, yet pluralistic society such as Namibia.

As elders in the Royal Maherero House told me in a collective interview, some of the most sacred Herero sites in the Hamakari, where so many of their ancestors perished, are on large cattle and wildlife ranches owned by ethnic Germans. In their view, those German-Namibians are reluctant to acknowledge the historical guilt of their own ancestors; they are also very reluctant to part with their land.[lxvi]

Another  concern beyond partisan considerations is Namibia's economic relationship with Germany. Germany can (and does) provide some of the foreign aid, investment and trade which Namibia needs so badly. Germany is Namibia’s second most important trade partner, after South Africa. Some speculate that governmental efforts to promote a genocide memorial might alienate German entrepreneurs who might otherwise promote commerce.[lxvii] Of course many influential scholars and journalists who argued that German policies in Namibia were genocidal, were themselves Germans. Given the ethnopolitics, economic realities and perceptions of leaders in Windhoek, elites who decide to promote a national Herero memorial may deliberately eschew the language of genocide in an effort to avoid controversy.

Conclusions:

Beyond Namibia, the memory of the Herero genocide takes on different meanings. In Africa, it may be recalled as the last of numerous genocides that occurred when colonists representing imperialistic European cultures came into violent conflict with indigenous peoples. Globally, the event is likely to be remembered in relation to a century of genocide and the Holocaust in particular. In recent years several scholars have begun to relate the two events. Broad, comparative studies of genocide have also emerged.[lxviii]

It can be argued that genocide is a greater threat to human civilization than conventional warfare. The question is complicated because genocide often occurs in conjunction with interstate military conflict.  Melson calculates that since World War II, more lives have been lost in domestic massacres and genocidal policies within states than in all of the wars between states.[lxix]

Baudrillard’s  suggestion that, "forgetting the extermination is part of the extermination itself,”[lxx] is a profound insight. Given the enormous historical significance of genocidal events, educators and opinion leaders should encourage the development of (national) memorials wherever documentary evidence strongly suggests that the crime has occurred. Memories are never static. Since memory itself is in constant flux, prominent memorials can take on meanings and functions that were not intended by their creators.[lxxi] It is what people invest in a memorial, over time, that makes it significant. Without clearly identified memorial sites as well as documentation, the awareness of genocidal events and their historical significance may be lost to future generations.  National memorials to genocide victims can reinforce a global perspective on unique historical conditions and unusual ethnocentric patterns of behavior associated with the worst crimes imaginable. A network of genocide memorials might provide settings for international scholarship as well as civic education.

Presumably many citizens in states where prominent memorials to genocide victims are established can benefit from their existence. Unlike war memorials (to combatants), genocide memorials can emphasize the inherent rights and dignity of civilians persecuted by authority.  If some encourage reflection about disadvantaged groups and peoples who historically struggled and suffered for their collective identity, they can educate in a humane fashion; conceivably some can transcend national and parochial perspectives. Surely there are no guarantees, given the reality that genocide memorials are inevitably constructed within states, shaped by group interests and people whose, "motives of memory are never pure.”[lxxii]

The absence of a prominent memorial to genocide victims in Namibia may be lamentable but it is not astonishing. There are certainly other comparable events in African history and elsewhere that have not been officially memorialized within states. Still, the eventual establishment of even a modest national memorial site to the Hereros can be significant within that country and perhaps in other African states where such an act might inspire local initiatives to memorialize neglected genocide victims.

The first case of genocide in the twentieth century may eventually be memorialized in a prominent national setting or facility. The obstacles to such a development are formidable: inertia; partisan politics; economic concerns and -- most ominous -- fears of ethnic conflict. At the dawn of a new century, questions about Namibia's memory of genocide are still raised: How does the Herero calamity of the early 1900's relate to Namibia's history? Should more be done to commemorate that event? Over time, Namibians will answer these questions, perhaps with increasing reference to international perspectives, as well as their collected, national memories.

 

 

***

 

This study was facilitated by funds provided by the following sources: The Walter B. Ford Foundation and the Graduate Research Institution at the State University College of New York at Oneonta, and a grant from the New York State United University Professions Faculty Development Award (NYS/UUP PDQWL). I also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of A. Paul Vogts (Windhoek), Hiruke Kaapama (Katutura), and Professor Allan D. Cooper of Otterbein College. Finally, my thanks to  colleagues for their careful readings and constructive suggestions in response to previous drafts of this essay: Professors Neville Choonoo, Achim Koeddermann, Steven J. Gilbert and Paul E. Scheele, all  at SUNY Oneonta. 

 

 

ENDNOTES



[i] Since the Polish jurist and scholar Raphael Lempkin first coined the term (Axis Rule in Occupied Europe Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment, 1944) there has been much scholarly debate on the meaning of genocide. There is widespread criticism (quite valid, I believe) of the United Nations' definition adopted in 1949. Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, History and Sociology of Genocide  (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990) discuss several problems with extant definitions of genocide.(pp. 23-32) I embrace their definition here: "Genocide is a form of one-sided killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator." See also Jonassohn, "Prevention without Prediction," Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 7:1 (Spring, 1993) pp.1-13.

[ii] William Shawcross, The Quality of Mercy: Cambodia, the Holocaust, and Modern Conscience (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984) and also, "The Burial of Cambodia" in The New York Review of Books XXXI, 8 (May 10, 1984) 16-20. Regarding the Armenians, there is an Armenian Cultural Museum in Watertown, Massachusetts, USA. A recent effort by the Ghanaian government to restore European forts that were used to facilitate slave trading there, suggests another facility that may come to be viewed as a genocide memorial.  See Karl Maier, "Chamber of Horrors" Africa Report, March/April 1993, p. 68.

[iii] A useful macroanalysis of twentieth century genocides is R.J. Rummel's, Genocide in Comparative and Historical Perspective, a paper prepared for the Conference on "The `Other' as Threat --Demonization and Antisemitism," June 12-15, 1995 at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.

[iv] James E. Young, The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993). This brilliant analysis demonstrates the complexity of the memorialization process in relation to historical understanding. For a brief essay that deals with a recent memorialization of the Holocaust, see Leon Wieseltier, "After Memory: Reflections on the Holocaust Memorial Museum"(in Washington),The New Republic, May 3, 1993, pp. 16-26.

[v] Young develops these points in his consideration of genocide memorials, memory and the sense of historical meaning within political cultures. (See pp. 5, 8-14) Another cogent analysis of how memory is constantly refashioned by psychological and social forces is John Kotre's White Gloves: How We Create Ourselves Through Memory (New York: The Free Press, 1995).

[vi] Three of the first scholars to clearly document the event as genocidal were: Horst Drechsler, Let Us Die Fighting: The Struggle of the Herero and the Nama against  German Imperialism (1884-1915) Translated by Bernd Zollner. London: Zed Press, 1980. Original German version, Akademie-Verlag, 1966; Helmut Bley, South West Africa Under German Rule, 1898-1914 London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1971; and, Woodruff D. Smith, The German Colonial Empire, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978.

[vii] Bley, South-West Africa, p. xvii, and Jon Swan, “The Final Solution in South West Africa,” Military History Quarterly June, 1991, pp. 36-55.

[viii] This situation may be changing with occasional  mass media accounts of the event.  One example is a German article summarizing the event as genocidal is by Von Volker Ullrich, "Deutsches Blut zu rachen!"  Die Zeit, 20 zeittaufte, no. 3, 21 January 1994.

[ix] Jon Bridgman, The Revolt of the Hereros (Berkeley: University of California, 1981), also Bley, op cit., p. 124-127.

[x] Drechsler, op cit., p. 349;  Bley, op cit., p 95;  Bridgman, op cit., p. 62.

[xi] Siba N’Zatioula Grovogui, Sovereigns, Quasi Sovereigns, and Africans, (Minneapolis University of Minnesota, 1996) pp. 100-102. See also, Michael Scott Oral Records Project, The Mbanderu, (Windhoek: Star Binders, circa 1990) and Warriors, Leaders, Sages, and Outcasts in the Namibian Past: Narratives Collected From Herero Sources (Windhoek: John Meinert Pty, 1992).

[xii] See Grovogui, op.cit. For a detailed account of how colonial authorities maneuvered to exploit differences among the Hereros and how Samuel came to be the “paramount leader” recognized by the Germans, see Gerhard Pool, Samuel Maherero, (Windhoek: Gamsberg Macmillan, 1991) pp. 81-139.

[xiii] Drechsler, op cit., pp. 166-167;  Pool, op cit.,  p. 211.

[xiv] Bridgman, op cit. p. 112.

[xv] Most scholars accept the estimate by Drechsler and others that there were roughly 80,000 Hereros prior to 1904 but the data is somewhat shaky. The highest estimate of the Herero population was 100,000 but a few researchers such as Brigett Lau speculate that the population was much lower.

[xvi] By May (autumn in the territory) half or more of the entire Herero population with a huge concentration of cattle, numbering perhaps 50-60 thousand, was believed to be located in the Waterberg area. See Bridgman, op cit., p. 109.

[xvii] At the end of 1905, according to Drechsler  (op cit., p. 238ff.) and Bley  (op cit., p. 150) “there were only some 16,000 Herero survivors in the colony.”

[xviii] Jon Swan’s essay summary of the event includes excerpts of testimony given under oath by several witnesses to the worst atrocities. The quote above came from Jan Cloete of Omaruru. Military History Quarterly, p. 50. See also Bley, op cit., p 126.

[xix] Von Trotha made it clear that the only hope for the women and children after the Waterberg battle was for them to cross the desert to Bechuanaland. Survivors were to be denied water and food supplies and driven "back to their people," i. e., beyond the colonial borders on the sandveld. In his report to the Chief of the Army General Staff in Berlin he described the uprising as a "racial struggle" that allowed no room for compromise. Bley, op cit.  p. 164. Many of his statements clearly expressed a desire for what has been euphemistically termed “ethnic cleansing” by Serbs in           Balkan areas recently.

[xx] Von Trotha asserted that if annihilation were not possible from a military standpoint, "then they must be driven from the land." See Drechsler, Sudwestafrika, p. 189.  See also Bley, op.cit., pp. 163-164. This notorious “extermination order” was issued a month after the Hamakari battle and was rescinded after much controversy in Berlin, by Chancellor von Bulow.

[xxi] Bley, pp. 150-151; Bridgman, pp. 126-131.

[xxii] According to Bley, “about a thousand” escaped into Bechuanaland; (op cit.  p. 150); Bridgman also reported that “rather less than 1000 found refuge in Ovamboland; and perhaps the same number in Namaland,” within the colony. (op cit. p. 131).

[xxiii] Bridgman, p.131.

[xxiv] Bridgett Lau, "Uncertain Certainties:  The Herero-German War of 1904," Mibagus (also Agus) no 2 (April, 1989), Windhoek, pp. 4-8.

[xxv] Colonists typically harbored hostile attitudes toward the Hereros and other indigenous peoples, according to contemporary observers. They viewed them as inferiors but feared for their own physical security. Herero chiefs viewed high ranking colonial officials as equals but were supercilious in their dealings with settlers. By 1905 the colonists were said to be far more belligerent and hostile toward "natives" than soldiers (were). See Bridgman, p. 155. Bley's analysis of colonial attitudes is quite thorough, especially pp. 73-98, 249-279.

[xxvi] Dreschler, p. 242, and Bridgman, pp. 26, 165.

[xxvii] Bley, South West Africa Under German Rule, p. 150; also Dreschler, op cit. pp. 148, 242-244.

[xxviii] Karla Poewe, The Namibian Herero: A History of Their Psychosocial Disintegration (Lewiston, N.Y. and Queenston, Ontario: Edwin Mellen Press, 1985) pp. 69-78.

[xxix] Bridgman, p. 131. See also Bley, who wrote that “the Herero . . . abandoned their traditional customs and standards. Deprived of their tribal links, often without contact with their families, they became cowed and disoriented.” (op cit., p 151)

[xxx] Pool, op cit., p. 306; Peter H. Katjavivi, (A History of Resistance in Namibia, Paris: UNESCO Press, 1988) p. 26.

[xxxi] According to Ruth First, South West Africa (Baltimore: 1963, Penguin Books), of all the African groups, the Herero led the effort to petition the United Nations to intervene against the apartheid regime. p. 196.

[xxxii] Katjavivi, p. 128.

[xxxiii] Hidpo L. Hamutenya and Gottfried H. Geingob, "African Nationalism in Namibia," in Christian P. Potholm and Richard Dale (eds.) Southern Africa in Perspective, Free Press:  New York, 1972), pp. 85-94.

[xxxiv] Africa Watch (Richard Dicker, author) Accountability in Namibia: Human Rights and the Transition to Democracy, August, 1992, Human Rights Watch Report. (New York: HRW, 1992), pp. 1, 18.

[xxxv] Joshua Bernard Forrest, "A Promising Start:  The Inauguration and Consolidation of Democracy in Namibia," World Policy Journal, 9/4 (Fall/Winter 1992), pp. 739-753.

[xxxvi] See, for example, "Namibia may offer the brightest hope (in Africa)." Editorial comment by Steve McDonald in Africa Report May/June, 1993, p. 70.

[xxxvii] This part of the study is based upon field research including interviews conducted in Namibia, first in May of 1993 and last in June of 1997. It should be clearly stated at the outset that I sought more than local Herero memorials. I sought Herero memorials with specific reference to the events of 1904-1907 in a national context.  Herero memorials typically were gravestone markers and ceremonial processions to burial grounds. I looked for some prominent national memorialism for the Herero, readily known and accessible to a variety of ethnic groups in the population, with explicit descriptions or documentation of the events that were so calamitous.

[xxxviii] Interview with Hinrich Schnieder, Otjiwarongo; 7 June 97.

[xxxix] I first saw that photographic display of Herero-German conflict at the Alte feste museum in early June 1997. (It was not there in May of 1993.)

[xl] The colorful, “Red Flag” ceremonies occur during one of the last weekends in August.

[xli] After he died in 1923, authorities allowed the return of his body to the land where he had long hoped to return. Details about the politics of his reburial are found in  G. Pool, Samuel Maherer (op cit., pp. 293-308).

[xlii] Grovogui, op cit. pp. 100-102.

[xliii] The plaque simply states:  "Dem Andenken, Der in Schlacht, am Gefallenen Hererokriger."

[xliv] After spending a day alone in the graveyard, I inquired about the whereabouts of Herero burial grounds that were thought to be in the immediate area.  Camp employees and others who lived in the area were unable to indicate where they were located.  My impression is that the area provides very powerful places for memories and reflection for Hereros and others with knowledge of what happened there, but not many go for that purpose.

 

[xlv] Testimony gathered from Herero workers on the farm of Wilhelm Dickman solicited in the company of Hiruke Kaapama and Henrich Meier on June 7, 1997.

[xlvi] The church was one place where disoriented Herero (and Nama) could legitimately congregate without interference. There they were gradually able to reconstitute communities and develop a broader sense of African nationalism. (Bley, op cit., pp. 256-257.)

[xlvii] According to the brochure published by the National Monuments Commission there are 118 officially designated national monuments.

[xlviii] Interviews, National Monuments Council (further information available upon request).

[xlix] A recent study indicated that the sale of cattle were again an important source of income to Hereros. (New Era, Windhoek news weekly, 6-12 April, 1995. p. 7. This is remarkable when one recalls that it was illegal and economically difficult for them to own cattle for many years.

[l] One such division recently became manifest with the proposal for a new national arrangement called a "Traditional Council" of ethnic and community leaders: Some Mbanderu leaders expressed a desire to terminate their association as Hereros. In addition to the two royal houses or “authorities” (as they are sometimes referred to now) already mentioned above, there are Zieraua (“white flag”), Kambazembi, Otjikaoko, and Vita associations. Much of the diversity and political conflict within the Herero population (long encouraged and exploited by political authorities) relates to these groupings. For historical background, see Pool, op cit., pp. 51, 88, 131.

[li] Bridgman, op cit., p. 2.

[lii] Interview with Brigett Lau, May 11, 1993.

[liii] Lau, “Uncertain Certainties: The German Herero War of 1904,” Migabus, Windhoek, 1989 also reprinted in History and Historiography (Windhoek: Discourse/MSORP, 1995) available in National Archives.

[liv] Ibid. See “Uncertain Certainties,” pp. 3-5.

[lv] For one critical response to Lau and others, see Kurt Jonassohn, “Before the Holocaust Deniers,” Social Science and Modern Society/Trans-action. 33:2 Jan/Feb 1996, pp. 31-38.

[lvi] Pool, op cit. pp. 251-252, Poewe, and Lau have disputed the meaning of the word vernichten translated as “annihilation,” in the context of the policy to imprison large numbers of Herero civilians after the Waterberg battle. Pool, for example, stated that 8,889 prisoners taken up to 11 January 1905 was a “trustworthy statistic.” (op cit., p. 280)

[lvii] Even the Chief of Staff in Berlin, Graf Schlieffen, agreed with von Trotha that there could be no compromise with the Herero. He expressed admiration for his intention to “annihilate” them. Bley, op.cit., pp. 165-169. However the term (annihilate) was intended, von Trotha’s clear demand that, “The Herero nation must leave the country,” suggests that a genocidal policy was in effect. See Drechsler, Sudwestafrika, p. 184. Brigitte Lau herself acknowledged throughout her efforts to refute charges of German genocide that “Hereros suffered extremes of privation and humiliation” from “inexcusable” German policies, and further that von Trotha was a “necrophiliac fanatic” who “engaged in acts of extreme barbarism towards a number of Herero.” See “Uncertain Certainties,” in Lau’s History and Historiography, (Windhoek: Discourse/MSORP, 1995) pp. 45-46.

[lviii] With reference to the Chalk/Jonassohn definition of genocide adopted (see ff. 1, above) it seems reasonable to conclude that genocidal policies were implemented for a period of at least one year in South West Africa. Subsequent policies contributed further to what was, in effect, the deliberate destruction of a way of life as well as the physical destruction of more than a majority of an indigenous population in Namibia. A recent macroanalysis that categorizes the Herero disaster as genocidal is Peter duPreez, Genocide: The Psychology of Mass Murder, London: Bowerdean/Boyars, 1994. According to duPreez that type of genocide was “pragmatic and “developmental,” obviously from the colonial/hegemonic perspective.

[lix] op cit, ff. 30 above. Katjavivi studied at Oxford and Yale Universities.

[lx] Poewe was "unable to find any living Herero who could remember those times or remember having been told about them." in the early 1980’s (op cit., p. 69).  See also ff. 51 above. Although the genocidal event was not generally taught in Herero schools during the pre-independence period it is now, in the middle school years.

[lxi] One of several published indications of the growing interest in the subject is found in I. Gebby Uamburn, "Hosea Kutako Foundation," (an article in Herero) New Era, 15-21 June, 1995, p. 17.

[lxii] Conversation with Mr. G. Hoveka, National Monuments Council, June 3, 1997. Also, correspondence with Professor Peter Katjavivi, dated 7 July, 1997.

[lxiii] A strong possibility for a memorial that would serve to strengthen a sense of national purpose and relations with neighboring Angola might be Kassinga, across the border with that country where South African forces massacred hundreds (mostly civilians) in 1978. Every year on the anniversary of that event there is recollection and reportage of it in Namibian media.

[lxiv] Young,  op.cit,  p. 3.

[lxv] Interviews, National Monuments Commission, Windhoek, May 12 and 21, 1993. Additional data available upon request.

[lxvi] Interview with Moses Vesevete, Justius U. Maherero, Elia N. Kangumine; Jerry N. Kaapama, translator. 6 June, 1997.

[lxvii] Data on commerce with Germany in the years since independence does show an increase in the total value of imports, investments, and tourism. Germany ranks second as a source of Namibia's imports, third as a market for Namibian exports. (South Africa remains, by far, Namibia's most important trade partner.)

[lxviii] Ervin Staub, The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1989);  duPreez, op cit.; ; Chalk and Jonassohn, op cit.; R. J. Rummel, op cit.

[lxix] Robert Melson, Revolution and Genocide:  On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust (Chicago:  University of Chicago, 1993), p. 285.

[lxx] Young, p. 1.

[lxxi] See Gustav Niebuhr, "More Than a Monument," New York Times, Nov. 11, 1994, p. 1, regarding the changing meaning of America's Vietnam War Memorial. A recent report on the neglect of Cambodia’s (auto)genocide memorial appears in the July 31, 1997 New York Times (see Seth Mydans, “Pol Pot Trial . . .” on p. 5). On the other hand, memorials can be significantly modified in relation to myths, as historical understanding and the national cultural context changes (Young, 243-260); also, Shalmi Bar-Mor, a former administrator at Yad Vashem, in Jerusalem, suggested a deliberate overemphasis on (especially the Warsaw) Resistance as a Holocaust phenomenon throughout the first decade of that museum's existence. (14 June 1995 presentation to Council on International Educational Exchange seminar group at Yad Vashem).

[lxxii] Young, op. cit. p. 2.

 

********************************************************************************************************************************************

  1989 Essay (published in SUNY Oneonta's The State Times newspaper) by Paul Conway

The Proliferation of Chemical and Biological Weapons: What Can the USA Do Now?

Recent intelligence reports that up to a dozen states are actively researching or developing bacteriological weapons (BW) are chilling. The reports that Iraq, in particular, has developed agents such as anthrax and typhus for military purposes should generate a forceful and sustained diplomatic response, even if it takes many months of effort. Whether or not recent reports of typhus in Kurdish communities are related to government policies, it is plausible that a regime that was recently willing to wage chemical warfare (CW) against the Kurds would consider using germ agents (more difficult to trace) against them as well.

It may be too late to put the CBW genie back into the bottle. Grandiose disarmament proposals are not sufficient in relation to these weapons in particular. It is simply too difficult -- virtually impossible -- to negotiate and implement a verifiable ban on CBW agents. Arrangements for surveillance and compliance in many small places in dozens of states would have to be very intrusive. It is hard to imagine many American chemical-pharmaceutical companies accepting them. Much time and energy could be wasted pursuing such a lofty goal. In the long run such a disarmament agreement would be unenforceable and might encourage cynicism, as did the 1928 Kellog-Briand Pact, which banned warfare itself. Governments and terrorists will always have access to CBW agents if they choose. But they must know they will be punished if they use them.

Why single out Iraq? Saddam Hussein's government initiated the use of lethal chemical weapons in the Persian Gulf war after attacking Iran. It used lethal chemicals against Iraq's own Kurdish population in August and September of 1988. It has now initiated an extensive germ warfare program. If there is no collective response to such blatant, sustained disregard for international standards we can be sure that proliferation, and the actual use of CBW will escalate dramatically.

The response that would be most dramatic, and satisfying to some, would be for a more powerful state to bomb the facility. Just as the Reagan administration supposedly flirted with the idea of bombing Libya's chemical weapons factory, the Israeli government is reportedly considering a preemptive strike against Iraq's CBW facility. That seemed to work when they bombed an Iraqi reactor in 1981. But it is not likely to stabilize this dangerous situation. There are already too many states in the Middle East that already have some CBW capabilities. An air strike would also be seen as illogical and self-serving militarism. The U.S. continues to retain its own chemical weapons and has a long background pioneering BW research and development (though its stockpile was dismantled in the early 70's). Presumably Israel has such capabilities for deterrence purposes. A unilateral raid would be foolish, yet something must be done quickly to reduce the dangers of CBW proliferation.

What should be done now is difficult, not only for the U.S., but even more so for nations that engage in substantial trade with Iraq. There should be a strong multinational effort to implement tough sanctions against Iraq which would punish Saddam Hussein's government. It would set a precedent for an effective international system to deter CBW use in the future.

Economic sanctions were imposed by the League of Nations during Italy's 1935-36 invasion of Ethiopia (when gas was also used against many helpless victims). That war ended quickly and the sanctions broke down. There were no sustained efforts to punish Mussolini's government and set an example. Some may argue that it is already too late for a collective response to Iraq's use of lethal chemicals several months ago, but now that outrage has been thoroughly documented. If there is now compelling evidence that Iraq is also in the germ warfare business, there is no excuse for inaction. The U.S. should be willing to provide incentives to states that would have to make the biggest economic sacrifices. Trade concessions or foreign aid might be necessary. The price would amount to a fraction of what we are still paying to perpetuate the Camp David Accords, still a worthy investment.

A halfhearted effort to encourage French, Soviet, and other leaders to cooperate will surely be ineffectual; a unilateral effort to impose sanctions (given the very limited commerce we have with Iraq) would be meaningless symbolism. Only if the Bush administration commits itself to an unprecedented effort to mobilize diplomatic opposition against a dangerous and law-breaking state can CBW proliferation be squelched. Only that will reinforce the rapidly deteriorating inhibitions against the (first) use of chemical or biological weapons already expressed in the Geneva Protocol of 1925. Such an accomplishment would bring great credit to the new administration and long-lasting benefits internationally.

PGC June, 1989