If we are to survive the trauma of commemorating the tragic events of 1904 this year as a nation undivided by hatred and misunderstanding, we need to strive after historical correctness rather than political correctness.

Historical accuracy is very hard to achieve, but it should be striven for as far as humanly possible, at least by experts in the field or those that want to call themselves such.

To begin with, all available sources should be studied by anyone wishing to make any statements claiming to be historical fact. On the history of 1904 there are many original sources to consult:

First, there are the Schutztrupope documents of the time, as well as writings by missionaries and other contemporaries, many of which should be available at the Windhoek Archives. (If no English - or Afrikaans - translations exist, it is high time someone makes them!)

Next, there are various contemporary publications by authors both from Namibia/South Africa and overseas (mainly Germany), presenting a wide range of political perspectives. Again, many of these may still need to be translated - but this country should have enough able translators to do the job.

Non-German-speaking historians (and journalists) could also gain access to German source material by meeting up with our German speaking researchers in the country (e.g. through the Scientific Society). Or they could speak directly to present-day Namibians who have private documents of the time and/or can tell stories handed down from generation to generation, both among the Herero and among present-day German-Namibians.

In the search for truth, It might be helpful to look for answers to the following for example:

1. What exactly led to the military action against the Herero? What actions by the Herero provoked it, and in turn, what exactly had led to these actions? - What role was played by the fact that the Herero and the traders at the time had vastly differing concepts of land and cattle ownership? (See Pastor Wienecke’s article on the Herero and their understanding of history, recently published in the ‘Allgemeine Zeitung’. Wienecke worked among the Herero for several decades and had many conversations with them on the subject.)

What role did alcohol play in the unauthorised cession of land by individual Hereros to traders and settlers?

2. Did the Herero at Waterberg (Hamakari) flee of their own accord, or were they chased into flight by the German troops? What happened between August and October 1904?

3. What exactly did the complete version of Von Throtha’s order say? And to what extent was it followed? (If. according to this ‘extermination order’, Von Throtha and his followers wanted all Hereros dead, why was no action taken against the Herero remaining at other centres such as Omaruru and Okahandja?)

It must not be forgotten that many Germans, both in South West Africa and in Germany, strongly opposed von Throtha’s radical attitude towards the Herero, his predecessor, Major Leutwein, for one. It is thus unfair to make sweeping statements about "the Germans" in general and "their" cruel actions, to the exclusion of all the other actors on the historical stage, as seems to be a popular custom these days - even in Germany, where such thinking is deemed politically correct.

One recent example of this rather superficial approach is the article by Henning Melber and Reinhard Koessler, published in the ‘Namibian’ of 6 February: By presenting a simplistic, superficial ‘overview’ of historical data concerning 1904, leaving out any details that do not fit

a certain theory they want to prove (namely to draw a line of development in German ‘genocidal’ thinking from 1904 to the Nazi regime of 1933-1945), they cleverly present an (almost) convincing historical treatise. However, where are the source references? What documents were used and which sources ignored?

It is one thing for a Herero citizen to prevent strong viewpoints on the 1904 issue, as he is speaking for his nation, but it is another for foreign academics to use and interpet historical events to prove their theories.

In the last 30-40 years it has become customary in Germany to interpet anything to do with World War solely through the filter of the Holocaust, because the guilt inherited from the Nazi regime is still so overwhelming. This has led to the present-day tendency of Germans to see Germany’s role in any war it was ever involved in before 1945 as that of perpetrator, and it is now almost impossible for anyone in Germany to concede that this might not be completely true.

Furthermore, it has also come to light that the first modern German publications on Germany’s colonual past were written by (then) East German authors with a certain political agenda, and much of present-day writing on colonialism is still based on their ‘research’. [An example of a modern German publication on the Herero-German War that does not fit into this category is Walter Nuhn’s "Sturm ueber Suedwest", published by Bernhard & Graefe in the 1990s(?) ]

It has also been cinceded by historians that the so-called ‘Blue Book’ was written by the British mainly for propaganda purposes, in order to discredit Germany as a colonial ruler and legitimately strip it of its colonies after World War I. Therefore not all of its contents is necessarily based on fact.

Finally, it should be remembered that a century ago it was the norm for the powers-that-be in any country in the world to quash rebellion by harsh military means - to cite just two of numerous examples: the Massacre at Amritsar by the British rulers in India, and the Russian tsar’s military action against his own people in Moscow.

These days it is ‘politically correct’ to take up the cause of the colonised against the colonisers everywhere in the World, and there is merit in that - provided history is not twisted beyond recognition in order to create a simplistic viiew of perpetrators and victims with nothing inbetween.

For the Centenary of the Herero-German War to have any meaning, and for it to contribute to a better common future for the descendants of the former adversaries, it is not enough to have some kind of (largely one-sided) "guilt and forgiveness" exercise - we need to separate fact from fiction and develop an understanding of the thinking of the time, both among the colonisers and the colonised; furthermore, we need to get an insight into the factors that led to serious misunderstandings between the two sides regarding land and cattle. Only with a mutual effort towards a true understanding of the events of 1904 will both sides of the former adversaries’ present-day descendants be able to accept what happened, take responsibility for it, and truly reconcile. Hate-filled diatribes and unresearched "factual" articles by non-historians (as well as one-sided historical ‘interpretations’ by certain academics calling themselves historians) will ach ieve just the opposite - to fuel hatred on the one side and resentment on the other.

By fostering a spirit of openness and understanding and resolving to learn from the past, we can move on together into a better future, even if this means that, as a gesture of reconciliation, Germany should give separate development aid to the Herero nation for a while.

E.N.

Tsumeb