Abstract
The “battle of the Waterberg” that took place on 11 August 1904 remains arguably the most pivotal historic event in the minds of many people in central Namibia. It is considered the opening event of the genocide perpetrated by German colonial troops against the Herero. At the same time, the central importance and meaning of this event and of the place it happened is reflected in clearly diverse socio-cultural backgrounds and interpretations. Larissa Förster's admirable Ph.D. thesis, which she defended in Cologne, focuses precisely on this tension. Based on a succession of intensive sojourns in the field as well as shorter trips spread over the years from 1999 to 2004, Förster unfolds a pageant of contradictory interpretations and fields of knowledge on the historical event and its theatre, as well as an array of intense and clearly divergent practices of commemoration. A final section brings trends and events up to date; with an analysis ending in late 2009, this section also highlights the broader perspective of Namibian–German relations with regard to the colonial wars and their difficult heritage.
Förster's approach and perspective are clearly those of an anthropologist. In setting out the views both of German- and Herero-speaking Namibians (in that order), she draws on participant observation and everyday communication, although in each of the two cases, forms of narration and ritual, along with the conditions under which they are upheld and reproduced, differ starkly. This also reflects the researcher's own differential cultural and personal relationship with the two groups, not least as a (metropolitan) German. An extensive and careful introductory part situates the study within its historical context of reference as well as in the wider current of studies, particularly those dealing with memory and ritual. The bulk of the volume then falls into two large parts, the first dealing with places and the second with rituals of memory. In each case, Förster deals consecutively with the knowledge systems and practices of German speakers and then Herero.
The main findings may be summarised in the gross differences in the narratives about the momentous events of the early 20th century, and in equally distinct conclusions drawn from the divergent accounts. Again, the differences between narratives can be traced to differential ways that people acquire and transmit knowledge about what happened in the region commonly known as the Waterberg. Significantly, even the name by which the battle is known differs. While German speakers tend to refer to the landmark table mountain of the Waterberg that dominates the regional landscape, Herero narratives speak rather of the waterholes that mark the actual battle sites, in particular of Ohamakari, now the namesake of a commercial farm owned by a German speaker.
Possibly Förster's most spectacular finding concerning the sites of memory is the great divergence in remembered battle sites: For their sources of knowledge, German speakers largely draw upon and invoke German publications from the period shortly after the events that include official accounts, alongside memories and novels. They also call upon more recent, popular literature written in German, and they rely to a certain extent on oral tradition transmitted within farmers' families. Herero, on the other hand, generally rely on orally transmitted information, including praise songs of the localities concerned, as well as family histories and generally accounts by elderly people handed down by their parents and grandparents. On both sides, experts can be found who not only concentrate this knowledge but also publicise it by the means available to their respective communities: in the case of German speakers, the local German newspaper, other literature, and the radio, while in the case of the Herero, the radio and oral recital are decisive. The narratives show clear differences in terms of the places remembered as important for what happened in 1904. It seems that German speakers – largely farmers in the rich environs of the Waterberg – limit their place knowledge to the area of commercial farming, which speaks to the close relationships among the farmers. The reach of such knowledge ends abruptly at the boundary of the former Herero reserve, now a communal area. This – today informal – boundary is also observed in a factual way by the largely German tourists who frequently visit the farms in order to explore the battlefield. Quite to the contrary, Herero interlocutors have pointed out a lot of sites east of the battle area at Ohamakari, where the decisive confrontation took place. By this, a much more complex memory-landscape is activated, and a certain amount of additional detail is supplied. While not made explicit by Förster, such findings also undercut the claims of superior knowledge still maintained by certain vociferous German-speaking hobby historians based in the Waterberg region.
The rituals set out in the second part of the book underscore the rift between the discourses of the two groups, as evidenced by the exploration of the memory-landscape. But the rituals also show some precarious ways in which this rift has temporarily been bridged. Again, German and Herero practices are treated separately. Förster demonstrates how the commemoration of the “battle of the Waterberg” by German speakers has changed its political meaning, but apparently much less its form, according to the extreme shifts that the political fortunes of this group underwent during the 20th century. In some ways, the battle was commemorated from its first anniversary, but the occasion came into its own in 1923 as a lynchpin of German-speaking identity in Namibia after colonial rule had passed over to South Africa. The commemoration ritual centred around the graveyard that had been erected in honour of the German soldiers who had died in action during the battle. At the outset, the event combined a meeting of war veterans with demonstrations of German ethnic customs and paraphernalia. Soon, the German boy-scout organisation that was central to the event for many decades was taken over as a front organisation by the Nazis. Thus, the Waterberg commemoration became an important event in the quest for colonial revisionism. World War II marked a break, not only in the temporal continuity of the ritual, but also in its meaning. After consolidating their position once again, German speakers now aligned with other Whites in a joint commemoration of the soldiers who had been killed during the various wars of the 20th century.
This form of commemoration was challenged by Herero spokesman Clemens Kapuuo, who blamed the organisers for inhibiting the healing of old wounds. The response to this belongs to the fascinating developments uncovered by Förster. First, a sham grave of “faithful Kaffir soldiers” was erected at the cemetery, after which politics took yet a fresh turn. From the mid-1970s on, the multi-ethnically framed party coalition Democratic Turnhalle Alliance (DTA) fostered a demonstration of alliance-building between German speakers and Herero, whose representatives appeared several times at the Waterberg commemoration. With Namibian independence in 1990, the event shrank into a meeting of stalwarts still flying the German imperial flag beside that of independent Namibia, which was finally banned by Namibian President Nujoma in 2003.
While public Herero commemorations also commenced in 1923, a specific event in the Waterberg region, Ohamakari Day, only developed from the 1960s onwards. In the beginning, the main concern was to convey essential historical knowledge and awareness to the youth. Independence in this case marked an enhanced significance of the event, since it indicated an important stage of anti-colonial resistance. At the same time, independence came with demands for action by the Namibian government to alleviate the plight of many Herero, not least of those still living in exile.
These parallel worlds of commemoration came into stark relief on the occasion of the centenary of the historic battle in 2004. Centred around the main event at Ohamakari on August 14, Förster relates the various – and in part controversial – activities that evolved. Namely, these activities involved in particular the two national committees that took diverse stances both on the hot issue of reparations from Germany, and on claims of Herero exclusivity in victimhood, which marginalised other groups, such as Nama, Damara and San. The centennial year 2004 also reinforced a German role with the construction and opening – with German support – of a cultural centre near the battle site. Upon completion of the centre, then-Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development Wieczorek-Zeul attended the main event and gave a speech that could have been understood as an apology, but also spawned controversy later on. Förster understands the connected conflicts as expressions of divergent interests and attempts to impose related narratives, both in terms of a united and independent Namibia and in terms of the various victim groups. Significantly, German speakers have largely been marginalised from these activities. Förster also highlights the tension between the mourning of the dead and the celebration of survival: The most salient form of this is manifested in the crowning of a “Miss Genocide”, which took place right after the 2004 Ohamakari event.
Subsequent developments, summarised at the end of the book, have opened some space for alliance-building between different victim groups, where discourse revolves around the issues of reparation (Wiedergutmachung, 352) and restitution. Here, the “exemplary” (357) issue of skulls of Namibians brought to Germany during colonial times has taken on central significance. Still, the main question remains of how the different concerns and narratives can be accommodated, not only by communal and sub-national initiatives but also in official versions that still prioritise the armed liberation struggle.
Larissa Förster's book deserves interest far beyond its seemingly narrow research focus on a small region in a vast country. Again, for visitors of that region who strive for deeper understanding, it can even serve as a vade mecum. Above all, however, this book is a fine-grained analysis that advances our knowledge about practices and controversies that revolve around memory. Further, this is a very well-written text, of a quality found unfortunately all too seldom in German writing today. Still, it is precisely this high quality that beckons one central criticism: This book should be in English to make it more accessible to all Namibians concerned.