Tweet
MEMORY POLITICS, THE REITERDENKMAL AND THE DE-COLONISATION OF THE MIND
Phanuel Kaapama
Namibian
http://www.namibian.com.na/2008/ August/columns/0821D14A6D.html
Aug 22 2008
Namibia
I HAVE followed with keen interest the debate that has erupted since
the unveiling of the Namibian Government's plan for the relocation of
the Reiterdenkmal monument to make way for the envisaged N$8 million
Independence Museum.
In a country where many essential political and policy issues are
normally allowed passage without being subjected to the necessary
public debates and scrutiny, one should therefore acknowledge the
enthralling exchanges that this issue has been able to generate, not
only in the corridors of power, but also in print and electronic media.
Various concerns were brought to the fore in this regard, ranging
from the price tag that could accompany the construction of the
proposed museum, the lack of broad-based public consultation and
administrative transparency in the allocation of the tenders for
the architectural design and construction of the proposed memorial,
to some other general concerns relating to the socio-political,
economic and cultural implications that may be yielded through the
execution of these plans.
As captivating as this debate may have been, there are a number of
pertinent aspects that have not been adequately addressed, and which
would therefore need further extensive pondering.
These relate to the specific historical context that underpinned the
commissioning of the Reiterdenkmal 96 years ago; as well as the essence
that such a preceding milieu may have on the present post-independence
socio-cultural and political dispensation.
This is of utmost importance in the sense that the analysis of the
socio-cultural, political and economic significance of Reiterdenkmal
will as a matter of principle have to be posited within the specific
historical events that it was created to give symbolic meaning to.
Only two out of the many commentaries that have emerged as part of
this lively debate have attempted to assess the present value of the
memorial in question on the basis of its historical background.
These were by Johannes Tjitjo of PACON and Andreas Vogt.
In his contribution Vogt tried to advance an argument to the effect
that the conservation and preservation of this specific historical
monument is one of the hallmarks of the true processes of national
reconciliation and nation-building in Namibia.
However as the present article will demonstrate, Vogt's contribution
amounted to nothing more than an expression of narcissistically
triumphalist ethno-nationalistic sentiments.
This is particularly evident from the little (if any) effort that
the writer has made towards demonstrating his empathy whatsoever
to the enduring sense of injustice that is being felt to this very
day by the descendants of those who suffered enormous loss of life,
property, livelihood, culture and dignity due to past colonial acts,
which the Reiterdenkmal was erected to celebrate.
The Reiterdenkmal was specifically erected to eulogise the carnage
by the German colonial Schutztruppe in its military campaigns, which
many progressive historians have characterised as having stood out
in colonial historiography the world over, by virtue of its genocidal
features.
This memorial was a brainchild of Colonel Ludwig von Estorff and was
designed by a German sculptor by the name of Adolf Kuerle, before
being officially unveiled by the German governor Dr Theodore Seitz
in 1912, on the birthday of Kaiser Wilhelm.
In these wars, the soldiers to whose honour this monument was
dedicated, were not only responsible for the execution of General
Lothar Von Trotha's notorious Vernichtungbefehl (Extermination Order),
which resulted in the slaughter of 80% of the Ovaherero people,
as well as in the death of 60% of the Nama population.
Many of these victims were subjected to well-orchestrated mass killings
in which they were driven out into the deserts to die of thirst and
hunger; while those who survived were later rounded up and send to
concentration camps, in which many more succumbed to the harsh living
and working conditions.
The horrendous acts that these soldiers committed marked what is
today recognised as the first genocide of the twentieth century,
which preceded other similar acts of carnage, such as that of the
Armenians, Jews and Cambodians etc.
Thus despite the enervated defence of the Reiterdenkmal put up by Vogt,
in which he opted to rely more on meaningless ethno-nationalistic
rhetoric rather than the power of reason, given its background there
should be no doubt whatsoever that the memorial in question should
first and foremost be considered as a symbol of the celebration of
colonial genocide and repression.
In many other countries such symbols of oppression are not only
relocated, but in some instances are also totally done away with
altogether, as part of the process of healing the memory of past
atrocities and injustices.
Some of the recent examples to this effect includes giant statue
of Lenin in Vilnius, the capital of the former Soviet republic of
Lithuania, which together with some other 60 symbols of repression
were relocated to the Soviet Sculpture Memorial Theme Park; a statue
of Enver Hoxha, the symbol of Stalinist repression in Tirana's main
square in the former Yugoslav Republic of Albania was torn down in
February 1991; another dedicated to Soviet soldiers killed in the
WWII was removed under an Estonian government order in April 2007;
the Madrid authority's removal in March 2005 of the city's last statue
General Franco.
Therefore the measures that the Namibian government is contemplating
for the relocation of this memorial are not only too lenient, but
also very late.
In view of some of the issues raised in the course of this debate, it
became clearly evident that although Namibia attained its independence
from colonial rule and foreign domination 18 years ago, there is still
much to be done in terms of de-colonisation of the minds of its people.
In particular although the Government of Namibia has embraced the
politics of reconciliation, the debate on the Reiterdenkmal has
once more provided attestation to the effect that the people of this
diverse country of ours are miles apart when coming to terms with the
deep colonial scars that were engraved into the social and cultural
fabric of our society.
The narcissistically triumphalist memory politics that have been
playing out following the announcement of the proposed relocation of
the Reiterdenkmal, is but one of the testimonies in this regard.
As part of his justification for the retention of the Reiterdenkmal
at its present location, Vogt argued that "it is the performance,
the achievement and the loss of life and health of the soldier which
is appreciated" in the symbolical form.
This creates an impression as if in Vogt's eyes the thousands of
lives that were lost at the hands of the Schutztruppe are worthless,
compared to the memorial dedicated to those who were responsible for
these atrocities.
Furthermore Vogt's disproportionate concerns for the health and
lives of the Schutztruppe seem to resonate with the manner in which
Von Trotha justified his chosen course of action, when he stated
"... I find it most appropriate that the nation perish instead of
infecting our soldiers and diminishing their supplies of water and
food... They have to perish in the Sandveld or try to cross the
Bechuanaland border".
Another aspect in Vogt's analogy that should not be allowed to pass
without being subjected to the necessary challenge, is the assertion
that it is "... not only the Namibian Government, but also the
German government should formulate a clear attitude and opinion"
in the matter of the proposed relocation of this monument.
In this regard one wonders what Germany's jurisdiction will be in
the matter of a memorial located on the Namibian soil, which not only
ceased to be German colony long ago, but has since moved on to become
an independent and sovereign state.
Could such sentiments have been prompted by the fact Germany remains
by far the biggest single donor country for Namibia, as well as
Namibia being the highest recipient of German official development
assistance in Africa? In this regard the President of the opposition
DTA, Katuutire Kaura was quoted in the local media as having noted that
"the German Government has given the Namibian Government hundreds of
millions of euros, since Independence, but the Swapo government now
wants to move that monument".
These latest diatribes by the Hon.
Kaura has turned out to be in total contradiction of the principle
that underpinned a motion that he introduced in the National Assembly,
three years ago, in which he advocated for the restoration of the
pre-colonial Otjiherero names of several Namibian towns, including
the capital city Windhoek.
The same can be said about the letter addressed to the Namibian
President, by Namibia Institute of Architects (NIA), whose content
turned to be similar that of an anonymous letter featured in the
local press.
After critically reflecting on NIA's purported benevolence, I was
left with goose bumps.
In particular I was astounded by the NIA's assertion that the proposed
location of the Independence Museum will be "...away from the very
people whose freedom it is supposed to represent".Does this mean
there are groups in this country who don't consider themselves part
of the Namibian independence? Such claims may convey some unpalatable
undertones that are reminiscent of an era which confined various racial
groups to different residential and business sections in urban areas.
In terms of which Windhoek proper was exclusively reserved for certain
racial groups, whereas those whose freedom the newly proposed memorial
is supposedly going to represent were confined to the fringes of the
city in Katutura, Mondesa or Kuisebmond.
Moreover when the NIA speaks of other "sites where important related
events took place", does this mean the NIA as a body representing
one of the most learned cream of the Namibian intellectual crop is
truly not aware of the fact that the very site earmarked for the
proposed Independence Museum used to house one of the concentration
camps in which countless Nama and Ovaherero people were subjected
to innumerable acts of cruelty and humiliation; or does it mean that
these events are unimportant in the eyes of the NIA? Allow me to sign
off by making the following three notations.
Firstly there are two fundamental issues in this debate that are
being deliberately lumped together.
This is being done in a rather subtle attempt for the political
legitimisation of concerns that on their own would be exposed for
its moral reprehensibility, as well as its narrow sectional agenda.
Therefore in order to accord this important debate the justice that
it deserves, the concerns relating future fate of the Reiterdenkmal
monument should in my view be detached from the more legitimate
concerns regarding the essence, content, form, location, cost, and
transparent handling of the proposed Independence museum.
Secondly, the public acknowledgment of the history of abuse that has
for years remained ignored, cannot be realized without the fine-tuning
of the perpetrating group's historical pride, which may entail the
not-so-easy, yet necessary balancing of the point of pride with
shame over the untold suffering that others may have had to endure
for decades.
Thirdly it is crucial to remember that dealing with fragmented
historical memory can be very complex and cannot therefore be
undertaken through a piecemeal process of political tokenism.
Thus the mere insertion of one or two paragraph into a history books,
adding tables to and/or moving of existing memorials, may add to rather
than diffusing the complex volatilities embedded in historical memory.
Phanuel Kaapama
Namibian
http://www.namibian.com.na/2008/ August/columns/0821D14A6D.html
Aug 22 2008
Namibia
I HAVE followed with keen interest the debate that has erupted since
the unveiling of the Namibian Government's plan for the relocation of
the Reiterdenkmal monument to make way for the envisaged N$8 million
Independence Museum.
In a country where many essential political and policy issues are
normally allowed passage without being subjected to the necessary
public debates and scrutiny, one should therefore acknowledge the
enthralling exchanges that this issue has been able to generate, not
only in the corridors of power, but also in print and electronic media.
Various concerns were brought to the fore in this regard, ranging
from the price tag that could accompany the construction of the
proposed museum, the lack of broad-based public consultation and
administrative transparency in the allocation of the tenders for
the architectural design and construction of the proposed memorial,
to some other general concerns relating to the socio-political,
economic and cultural implications that may be yielded through the
execution of these plans.
As captivating as this debate may have been, there are a number of
pertinent aspects that have not been adequately addressed, and which
would therefore need further extensive pondering.
These relate to the specific historical context that underpinned the
commissioning of the Reiterdenkmal 96 years ago; as well as the essence
that such a preceding milieu may have on the present post-independence
socio-cultural and political dispensation.
This is of utmost importance in the sense that the analysis of the
socio-cultural, political and economic significance of Reiterdenkmal
will as a matter of principle have to be posited within the specific
historical events that it was created to give symbolic meaning to.
Only two out of the many commentaries that have emerged as part of
this lively debate have attempted to assess the present value of the
memorial in question on the basis of its historical background.
These were by Johannes Tjitjo of PACON and Andreas Vogt.
In his contribution Vogt tried to advance an argument to the effect
that the conservation and preservation of this specific historical
monument is one of the hallmarks of the true processes of national
reconciliation and nation-building in Namibia.
However as the present article will demonstrate, Vogt's contribution
amounted to nothing more than an expression of narcissistically
triumphalist ethno-nationalistic sentiments.
This is particularly evident from the little (if any) effort that
the writer has made towards demonstrating his empathy whatsoever
to the enduring sense of injustice that is being felt to this very
day by the descendants of those who suffered enormous loss of life,
property, livelihood, culture and dignity due to past colonial acts,
which the Reiterdenkmal was erected to celebrate.
The Reiterdenkmal was specifically erected to eulogise the carnage
by the German colonial Schutztruppe in its military campaigns, which
many progressive historians have characterised as having stood out
in colonial historiography the world over, by virtue of its genocidal
features.
This memorial was a brainchild of Colonel Ludwig von Estorff and was
designed by a German sculptor by the name of Adolf Kuerle, before
being officially unveiled by the German governor Dr Theodore Seitz
in 1912, on the birthday of Kaiser Wilhelm.
In these wars, the soldiers to whose honour this monument was
dedicated, were not only responsible for the execution of General
Lothar Von Trotha's notorious Vernichtungbefehl (Extermination Order),
which resulted in the slaughter of 80% of the Ovaherero people,
as well as in the death of 60% of the Nama population.
Many of these victims were subjected to well-orchestrated mass killings
in which they were driven out into the deserts to die of thirst and
hunger; while those who survived were later rounded up and send to
concentration camps, in which many more succumbed to the harsh living
and working conditions.
The horrendous acts that these soldiers committed marked what is
today recognised as the first genocide of the twentieth century,
which preceded other similar acts of carnage, such as that of the
Armenians, Jews and Cambodians etc.
Thus despite the enervated defence of the Reiterdenkmal put up by Vogt,
in which he opted to rely more on meaningless ethno-nationalistic
rhetoric rather than the power of reason, given its background there
should be no doubt whatsoever that the memorial in question should
first and foremost be considered as a symbol of the celebration of
colonial genocide and repression.
In many other countries such symbols of oppression are not only
relocated, but in some instances are also totally done away with
altogether, as part of the process of healing the memory of past
atrocities and injustices.
Some of the recent examples to this effect includes giant statue
of Lenin in Vilnius, the capital of the former Soviet republic of
Lithuania, which together with some other 60 symbols of repression
were relocated to the Soviet Sculpture Memorial Theme Park; a statue
of Enver Hoxha, the symbol of Stalinist repression in Tirana's main
square in the former Yugoslav Republic of Albania was torn down in
February 1991; another dedicated to Soviet soldiers killed in the
WWII was removed under an Estonian government order in April 2007;
the Madrid authority's removal in March 2005 of the city's last statue
General Franco.
Therefore the measures that the Namibian government is contemplating
for the relocation of this memorial are not only too lenient, but
also very late.
In view of some of the issues raised in the course of this debate, it
became clearly evident that although Namibia attained its independence
from colonial rule and foreign domination 18 years ago, there is still
much to be done in terms of de-colonisation of the minds of its people.
In particular although the Government of Namibia has embraced the
politics of reconciliation, the debate on the Reiterdenkmal has
once more provided attestation to the effect that the people of this
diverse country of ours are miles apart when coming to terms with the
deep colonial scars that were engraved into the social and cultural
fabric of our society.
The narcissistically triumphalist memory politics that have been
playing out following the announcement of the proposed relocation of
the Reiterdenkmal, is but one of the testimonies in this regard.
As part of his justification for the retention of the Reiterdenkmal
at its present location, Vogt argued that "it is the performance,
the achievement and the loss of life and health of the soldier which
is appreciated" in the symbolical form.
This creates an impression as if in Vogt's eyes the thousands of
lives that were lost at the hands of the Schutztruppe are worthless,
compared to the memorial dedicated to those who were responsible for
these atrocities.
Furthermore Vogt's disproportionate concerns for the health and
lives of the Schutztruppe seem to resonate with the manner in which
Von Trotha justified his chosen course of action, when he stated
"... I find it most appropriate that the nation perish instead of
infecting our soldiers and diminishing their supplies of water and
food... They have to perish in the Sandveld or try to cross the
Bechuanaland border".
Another aspect in Vogt's analogy that should not be allowed to pass
without being subjected to the necessary challenge, is the assertion
that it is "... not only the Namibian Government, but also the
German government should formulate a clear attitude and opinion"
in the matter of the proposed relocation of this monument.
In this regard one wonders what Germany's jurisdiction will be in
the matter of a memorial located on the Namibian soil, which not only
ceased to be German colony long ago, but has since moved on to become
an independent and sovereign state.
Could such sentiments have been prompted by the fact Germany remains
by far the biggest single donor country for Namibia, as well as
Namibia being the highest recipient of German official development
assistance in Africa? In this regard the President of the opposition
DTA, Katuutire Kaura was quoted in the local media as having noted that
"the German Government has given the Namibian Government hundreds of
millions of euros, since Independence, but the Swapo government now
wants to move that monument".
These latest diatribes by the Hon.
Kaura has turned out to be in total contradiction of the principle
that underpinned a motion that he introduced in the National Assembly,
three years ago, in which he advocated for the restoration of the
pre-colonial Otjiherero names of several Namibian towns, including
the capital city Windhoek.
The same can be said about the letter addressed to the Namibian
President, by Namibia Institute of Architects (NIA), whose content
turned to be similar that of an anonymous letter featured in the
local press.
After critically reflecting on NIA's purported benevolence, I was
left with goose bumps.
In particular I was astounded by the NIA's assertion that the proposed
location of the Independence Museum will be "...away from the very
people whose freedom it is supposed to represent".Does this mean
there are groups in this country who don't consider themselves part
of the Namibian independence? Such claims may convey some unpalatable
undertones that are reminiscent of an era which confined various racial
groups to different residential and business sections in urban areas.
In terms of which Windhoek proper was exclusively reserved for certain
racial groups, whereas those whose freedom the newly proposed memorial
is supposedly going to represent were confined to the fringes of the
city in Katutura, Mondesa or Kuisebmond.
Moreover when the NIA speaks of other "sites where important related
events took place", does this mean the NIA as a body representing
one of the most learned cream of the Namibian intellectual crop is
truly not aware of the fact that the very site earmarked for the
proposed Independence Museum used to house one of the concentration
camps in which countless Nama and Ovaherero people were subjected
to innumerable acts of cruelty and humiliation; or does it mean that
these events are unimportant in the eyes of the NIA? Allow me to sign
off by making the following three notations.
Firstly there are two fundamental issues in this debate that are
being deliberately lumped together.
This is being done in a rather subtle attempt for the political
legitimisation of concerns that on their own would be exposed for
its moral reprehensibility, as well as its narrow sectional agenda.
Therefore in order to accord this important debate the justice that
it deserves, the concerns relating future fate of the Reiterdenkmal
monument should in my view be detached from the more legitimate
concerns regarding the essence, content, form, location, cost, and
transparent handling of the proposed Independence museum.
Secondly, the public acknowledgment of the history of abuse that has
for years remained ignored, cannot be realized without the fine-tuning
of the perpetrating group's historical pride, which may entail the
not-so-easy, yet necessary balancing of the point of pride with
shame over the untold suffering that others may have had to endure
for decades.
Thirdly it is crucial to remember that dealing with fragmented
historical memory can be very complex and cannot therefore be
undertaken through a piecemeal process of political tokenism.
Thus the mere insertion of one or two paragraph into a history books,
adding tables to and/or moving of existing memorials, may add to rather
than diffusing the complex volatilities embedded in historical memory.