Exactly, it's unfortunately a world that isn't favouring empathy. And what the former colonisers are afraid of the most is that with an excuse comes the payment of reparations, and so they don't even recognise these crimes in the first place.
“Fighting for survival, the Nama massacred a fifth of the Herero population in a single day on August 23, 1850, at a place now known as Murder Hill.4 Another Nama raid of 1890, recorded by the newly arrived Germans, resulted in the burning of the entire southern territory of the Herero in what can only be described as an attempt at genocide.5 The Herero also displaced and enslaved the indigenous Damara people, who fled into the mountains. The Germans called them the Berg or “mountain” Damara and created a protected homeland for them in 1906. Missionary reports from before the German annexation described constant Herero raids on Damara and Saan villages. “They spared only the young and strong so that they could use them as slaves,” explained one report.6 The mutual antipathies and traditions of cattle and slave raiding in this area predated European contact. Honest historians, wrote two Tanzanian scholars, “should be able to discuss the atrocities committed between African communities in the precolonial period.”7” Excerpt From In Defense of German Colonialism Bruce Gilley Why no mention of this context?
The Gilley version of history is a common trope: without the Europeans, the 'savages' would have all massacred each other. That there were also violent conflicts within and between their societies is by no means their exclusive trait. The Europeans could really take a look at themselves in this regard. But such a perspective doesn't even occur to those who propagate it. They present this narrow-mindedness against the backdrop of centuries of intra-European violence. I usually no longer engage with such arguments, because all that results is both sides simply reaffirming their irreconcilability.
@@historyfox I see no evidence of such a view expressed in this quote. What I do see and agree with is not that they would collapse or kill themselves . Like Gilley often points out these “savages” were not a monolith, and there was a significant and valuable amount of them who didn’t want to continue living in conditions such as tribal practices of their own group and tribal warfare with their imperialistic “savage “ neighbors. Those people wanted, participated in, and recognized the value of a more civilized government. What is meant by civilized and savage? That one society has far more protections for individuals against initiations of force and coercion while installing governmental bodies with an accountability infrastructure. If you are any type of champion of freedom and liberty one must acknowledge, flaws acknowledged, that the european societal system provided by far more genuine freedom , liberty, trade and thus opportunities for individuals growth. Put simply, British Monarchy is relatively far more legitimate and moral than Tribal chiefdoms. Just as the American republic system , flaws acknowledged, is far superior than British monarchy. Just as Nazi Germany and Shinto Japan after WW2 had no legitimate right to their governmental system and the allied forces established theirs. Their is no right to a dictatorship or tyranny in any form. And in a conflict between one of them and a more free society , justice demands supporting the more free society , to the extent that they are truly a free society. British common law flaws and all is morally and practically more legitimate than tribal law.
@@historyfox And massacres of weaker tribes is the rule in all civilizations histories. See the Bantu expansion , British and Irish history, The caribs in the Americas etc.
Accountability is lacking in this world as is empathy. This conversation was a pleasure to witness.
Exactly, it's unfortunately a world that isn't favouring empathy. And what the former colonisers are afraid of the most is that with an excuse comes the payment of reparations, and so they don't even recognise these crimes in the first place.
Bruce Gilley’s book on German Colonialism put’s Melber’s position in quite a tough position. Would love a video analyzing the specific claims
“Fighting for survival, the Nama massacred a fifth of the Herero population in a single day on August 23, 1850, at a place now known as Murder Hill.4 Another Nama raid of 1890, recorded by the newly arrived Germans, resulted in the burning of the entire southern territory of the Herero in what can only be described as an attempt at genocide.5 The Herero also displaced and enslaved the indigenous Damara people, who fled into the mountains. The Germans called them the Berg or “mountain” Damara and created a protected homeland for them in 1906. Missionary reports from before the German annexation described constant Herero raids on Damara and Saan villages. “They spared only the young and strong so that they could use them as slaves,” explained one report.6 The mutual antipathies and traditions of cattle and slave raiding in this area predated European contact. Honest historians, wrote two Tanzanian scholars, “should be able to discuss the atrocities committed between African communities in the precolonial period.”7”
Excerpt From
In Defense of German Colonialism
Bruce Gilley
Why no mention of this context?
The Gilley version of history is a common trope: without the Europeans, the 'savages' would have all massacred each other. That there were also violent conflicts within and between their societies is by no means their exclusive trait. The Europeans could really take a look at themselves in this regard. But such a perspective doesn't even occur to those who propagate it. They present this narrow-mindedness against the backdrop of centuries of intra-European violence. I usually no longer engage with such arguments, because all that results is both sides simply reaffirming their irreconcilability.
@@historyfox I see no evidence of such a view expressed in this quote. What I do see and agree with is not that they would collapse or kill themselves . Like Gilley often points out these “savages” were not a monolith, and there was a significant and valuable amount of them who didn’t want to continue living in conditions such as tribal practices of their own group and tribal warfare with their imperialistic “savage “ neighbors. Those people wanted, participated in, and recognized the value of a more civilized government.
What is meant by civilized and savage? That one society has far more protections for individuals against initiations of force and coercion while installing governmental bodies with an accountability infrastructure. If you are any type of champion of freedom and liberty one must acknowledge, flaws acknowledged, that the european societal system provided by far more genuine freedom , liberty, trade and thus opportunities for individuals growth.
Put simply, British Monarchy is relatively far more legitimate and moral than Tribal chiefdoms. Just as the American republic system , flaws acknowledged, is far superior than British monarchy.
Just as Nazi Germany and Shinto Japan after WW2 had no legitimate right to their governmental system and the allied forces established theirs. Their is no right to a dictatorship or tyranny in any form. And in a conflict between one of them and a more free society , justice demands supporting the more free society , to the extent that they are truly a free society. British common law flaws and all is morally and practically more legitimate than tribal law.
@@historyfox And massacres of weaker tribes is the rule in all civilizations histories. See the Bantu expansion , British and Irish history, The caribs in the Americas etc.