Photograph: Gaob Medusaleg Xamseb, of the |Khomanin, circa 1812-1889. This picture was captured by British High Commissioner, William Coates Palgrave. Xamseb maintained an army of resistance against colonial occupation and died under mysterious circumstances, having been kept captive under the orders of German Authorities.

Source: National Archives of Namibia.

‍

‍

After a more than decade of negotiations on the OvaHerero and Nama Genocide, Namibia and Germany finally reached an agreement in May 2021 ¹, which includes a formal apology, as well as reparations of 1.1 billion euros, to be paid over a period of 30 years.  

‍

Met with disappointment and opposed by some groups of the victim communities, the outcomes of the Genocide negotiations have further divided opinion on Germany’s commitment to atoning for atrocities committed by its colonial government. 

‍

Beyond the existing contentions between the Namibian and German governments and the two communities over exclusion from the negotiations, the formal offer heightened other disputes taking shape within the wider Genocide debate. One such issue is the Genocide claim forwarded by San and Damara communities, the latter group having launched an inclusion bid in 2005 ², the issue arising because an extermination order was not issued in respect of these groups.

Besides supporting restitution claims of the Nama and OvaHerero, Damara leadership, through its Royal Authority, Gaob Justus ||Garoëb, Chief Immanuel |Gâseb and late politician, Dr. Theo-Ben Gurirab ³, called for the German government to be held liable for the mass murder of thousands of Damara people. They further wished for these murders to be officially recognised as genocidal crimes, allowing for Damara to make claims accordingly ³.

‍

Official figures relied upon by scholars and historians, estimate seventeen thousand Damara perished as a result of the genocide. Damara population figures in the 1800s were recorded to have stood at between thirty to forty thousand⁴. Post-genocide census records stated that the population had declined by fifty seven percent by the end of the 1904-08 war⁴.

‍

The devastating impact registered not only loss of lives but also of land, and therefore means of production. Damara and San had already begun losing territorial autonomy and socio-economic standing, upon the arrival of migrant pastoralists. The genocide and its preceding battles deepened Damara and San vulnerability, and has anchored them as socio-politically disenfranchised⁵. The Damara, who kept small livestock depended mainly on hunting and gathering as a source of livelihood, met the same fate as the OvaHerero and Nama. This is because the period of war reduced the economic sustainability of all indigenous populations. As political analyst Henning Melber and social scientist Reinhart Kössler assert, survivors among these local communities were denied their earlier social organization and as a result, their recovery was prevented. They suggest⁶ that the post-war sustained German occupation of the country meant “Africans were systematically prevented from reconstructing a basis for an independent life for themselves”. 

To date, these communities have not recovered from land dispossession by migrating pastoralists, colonial assault, and the genocide. Besides oral history which clearly narrates colossal losses, this dispossession has provided the basis for the Damara to argue for recognition as legitimate victims of the genocide. 

When the Damara initiated Genocide claims in 2005, the petition was met with hostility, rejection, and in some instances, even derision⁷, by some members of the recognised victim communities⁸. In 2016, the late Paramount Chief of the OvaHerero people, Vekuii Rukoro, who at the time was a corporate leader, described the deaths of the Damara during the war as coincidental⁹. Chief Rukoro described the incident as “collateral damage”, claiming mass assault on the Damara was accidental and not intentional, on the basis of colonial soldiers being unable to distinguish between different Namibian peoples. While the number of Damara casualties should undermine this argument, Chief Rukoro urged other groups to prepare their own claims and not piggyback on the efforts of the Nama and OvaHerero. 

Deemed harsh by some members of the Damara community, and also by some Herero scholars⁸, Chief Rukoro’s views were based on the argument that the Extermination Order issued by von Trotha exclusively mentioned the Nama and OvaHerero. This outlook was further cemented by the perception that San and Damara were neither involved, nor were at the center, of the preceding territorial wars. In these disputes, they were also deemed as mere bystander casualties. 

Political scientist and diplomat, Dr. Kaire Mbuende, in his 1986 authored account of the genocide, confirms this assessment. Mbuende argued the Damara did not take part in the revolt as such and were exterminated by German troops who could not distinguish them from the OvaHerero¹⁰. The narrative that the Damara were passive participants was recently discussed by author Tsukhoe ||Garoës, who confirms in her published work that the Damara not only dueled with the migrating African groups like the OvaHerero and Aawambo, but also resisted German colonial conquests, including the genocide¹¹. Amongst well known resistance leaders is Chief Medusaleg Xamseb and guerrilla fighter Prince |Hai-Hāb ||Guruseb, both of whom contribute to a body of work that confirms conflict with Germans, before and during the genocide. 

Thus, the consensus is that Damaras did indeed die in the genocide. But whether they have a case of genocide, remains a debate. This is because the Genocide Convention of 1948¹², against which claims of genocide are tested, explicitly refers to intent in terms of what constitutes a genocide. For the Damara or any aggrieved group to have their claims qualify as a genocide under the Convention, such application should be able to prove that the perpetrators had specifically targeted them with the aim and intention of extermination. This has been the primary challenge for the Damara claim.

Due to the absence of such intent in the form of an extermination order¹³, advancing a full campaign becomes challenging, but not impossible. In fact, scholars and genocide experts have begun to dissect and dispel intent as an exclusive requirement in the definition of a genocide. 

To understand and successfully register the claim of the Damara as genocide, various factors would have to be considered. As a starting point, a thorough examination of the Damara, pertaining specifically to the pre- and post-war period, would have to be instituted. Whilst the impact was not limited to loss of life, the percentage of the population which was reduced as a result, alludes to a dramatic and devastating blow on the social, cultural, political, economic, and emotional well-being of the Damara. In other words, there is an undeniable link between the events of the war and demise of Damara, particularly with regards to their socioeconomic status. As described above, many Damara are now landless, and have critically low food security. The war has thus left them especially vulnerable to contemporary shocks such as the effects of COVID-19 and the global food crisis. 

Secondly, and most importantly, before lodging an individual dispute with the German government, the Damara may choose to revisit and challenge the Genocide Convention, as have others before them. Extensive works have emerged more than two decades ago, calling for an examination of the current definition of a genocide and expand its meaning beyond events where intent cannot be easily identified or agreed upon.  

One such writer to have made critical contributions to this discourse is Katherine Goldsmith. Goldsmith¹⁴ has argued that “a general intent would be too low a standard for the crime of genocide, but committing an act with the knowledge that it will help an ongoing plan to destroy a group is sufficient evidence to prove intent to commit genocide.” What Goldsmith has been able to pin is that exclusively adopting dolus specialis (the special intent to destroy a protected group in whole or in part) makes the Genocide Convention’s preventive purpose most challenging. Instead, Goldsmith believes, the answer lies in adopting a knowledge-based approach, wherein anyone willingly engaged in committing prohibited acts and while knowing that such would contribute to an ongoing offensive against a group, would be liable for conviction for that crime. 

Herein lies an effective contribution toward advancing the claim of the Damara, the San and other affected communities, to whom von Trotha did not issue an extermination order. Von Trotha and his rogue regiment were aware that they were killing people, irrespective of whether their victims were OvaHerero or Nama. It is evidenced in records that the Damara were murdered in their thousands, and in thus further applying Goldsmith’s argument, I argue, that it is this information which defines and qualifies the deaths of seventeen thousand Damara people as a genocide. 

What remains to be seen is how Damara and San communities assert a campaign which obtains worldwide recognition that they too are legitimate victims of 1904/08 Genocide in the then-German South West Africa. 

The opposition of the agreement by some groups of the descendants has certainly given these communities sufficient time in which to formulate merit-based arguments which stand up to colloquially exclusive narratives about the Namibian Genocide. 

Damara commentators, historians, and scholars are currently advancing the call for Damara recognition as victims of the Nama and OvaHerero genocide. As the government continues to navigate national consensus around the Agreement, these voices are not only shedding light on how and why the Damara are one of the hardest hit groups. They also create a platform for Namibians and her stakeholders, to play an active role in seeing that the victims receive justice, and contribute to the restoration of their dignity.  

‍

‍

Lee Garises is a media practitioner, digital content producer and sociopolitical commentator from Namibia. She writes in her personal capacity as a researcher on Damara history. 

‍

References

‍
1) Oltermann. P, ‘Germany agrees to pay Namibia €1.1bn over historical Herero-Nama genocide’, The Guardian, Berlin, 2021, https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/28/germany-agrees-to-pay-namibia-11bn-over-historical-herero-nama-genocide (accessed on 31 May 2022)

2) Maletsky. C, ‘Damaras enter 1904 genocide debate’, The Namibian, Windhoek, 2005, https://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=12861&page=archive-read (assessed on 31 May 2022)

3) Vries. D, ‘Gurirab urges unity among Damara leaders’, The Namibian, Windhoek, 2008, https://www.namibian.com.na/48575/archive-read/Gurirab-urges-unity-among-Damara-leaders (31 May 2022)

4) Bart.J, Silverster. J, ‘Words cannot be found, German Colonial Rule in Namibia, An annotated reprint of the 1918 Blue Book’, SA History, London, Brill, 2003, pg 61-62, https://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/file%20uploads%20/jan-bart_gewald_jeremy_silvester_words_cannot_bbook4you.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2022)

5) #Neib. Medusalem, ‘German genocide occurred from 1884 to 1915’, New Era, 2016, https://neweralive.na/posts/german-genocide-occurred-1884-1915 (accessed on 31 May 2022)

6) Kössler. R, Melber. H, ‘The genocide in Namibia (1904-08) and its consequences: Toward a culture of memory for a memory culture today – a German perspective’,  Africavenir, https://www.africavenir.org/news-details/archive/2012/march/article/reinhart-koesslerhenning-melber-the-genocide-in-namibia-1904-08-and-its-consequences-toward-a-c.html?tx_ttnews%5Bday%5D=19&cHash=795d361b422b183d256692451c33ad0b (accessed on 31 May 2022)

7) Matundu. S, ‘Genocide reparation cannot include all communities (Part 2)’, New Era, 2016,  https://neweralive.na/posts/genocide-reparation-include-communities-part-2 (accessed 31 May 2022)

8) Kazembire,Tjirera, ‘Reparations an inclusive process’, Kazembire Blogspot, [web blog], 15 February 2016, http://kazembire.blogspot.com/2016/02/reparations-inclusive-process.html?m=1 (accessed 31 May 2022)

9) Beukes. J, Damara Killed Accidentally, Windhoek, Namibian Sun, 2016, https://www.namibiansun.com/news/damara-killed-accidentally/ (accessed 31 May 2022)

10) Mbuende.K, ‘Namibia, the Broken Shield: Anatomy of Imperialism and Revolution’, Lund, Sweden. Liber Forlag. Sweden,  (p-67).

11) ||Garoës.T, ‘A forgotten case of the ǂNūkhoen / Damara people added to colonial German genocidal crimes in Namibia:we cannot fight the lightning during the rain’, Future Pasts, ||Garoëb Royal Foundation, 2021, pg
https://www.futurepasts.net/fpwp11-garoes-2021 (accessed 31 May 2022)

12) UN, ‘Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’, https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf (accessed 31 May 2022)

13) Häußler. M, From destruction to extermination: Genocidal escalation in Germany’s war against the Herero, , Journal of Namibian Studies, 10 (2011): 55–81 ISSN: 1863-5954.

14) Goldsmith.K, ‘The Issue of Intent in the Genocide Convention and Its Effect on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: Toward a Knowledge Based Approach’,  5 , Digital Commons, Issue 3, Article 3, Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, (pg 253-245). https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.na/&httpsredir=1&article=1092&context=gsp (accessed on 31 May 2022)

‍

‍