I got into a big argument with friends over dinner. We were talking about a statue of a German general in Tanzania. One guy said the German colonists were viewed in a favorable light in former German East Africa whereas the Germans did "less than laudable" things in former German Southwest Africa. I'm a history teacher and said if any of my students would write such BS I'd give them an F. I took special offence over the wording about the atrocities the Germans committed in the colonies in western Africa since nobody in their right mind would describe the genocide of the Herero and Nama as "less than laudable".
However I unfortunately wasn't too informed about the specifics of the situation in former German East Africa since as a German history teacher there is unfortunately a lot more I have to teach. Plus there was wine involved and I have three little kids so I was overtired and not in the best debate position. He's also 20 years older and has travelled extensively in Africa. I'm wondering if I'm missing anything.
I tried to read up but didn't get to what I wanted to learn. Here are some things the guy said that I didn't have great answers to:
The Germans basically ended the slave trade in their colonies.
The "rulers" before the Germans were much worse.
The other European countries were much worse. - I hate this argument because in my opinion it only tries to shift the blame.
The Germans honoured Swahili more than other colonists. - this seems correct but I'd think it was a matter of convenience rather than them honoring traditional languages.
The Germans built the railroad. - again, I would think this was for convenience in order to be able to exploit the colonies faster.
My questions are: does anyone really view the involvement in German East Africa in a favorable light? Do his arguments number 1 and 2 make sense?
I'm planning on having my seniors do their own research and then discuss and maybe even write a letter to him arguing whether they would view an F justified if they wrote this in an exam.
I hope someone can help me. Thank you all so much!
I have a general and a specific answer to this.
The general one is: The german colonial system was, like every other, based on inequality, oppression and exploitation. I cannot understand why anyone wants to see a "good side" to this system, and it is impossible to give a scientific answer to the question how "good", "bad" or "worse" a ruler was – it depends on who you are asking. But for the vast majority it was not beneficial whatsoever, because it was not designed to be.
As you were saying, infrastructure is often cited as a benefit of colonialisation. But when it was built for the sole purpose of easier, faster and cheaper exploitation – how is this "good" for the colonial population in any way? And even if it was: How do you want to balance the "good" railroad and the "bad" forced labor? And what if the railroad was built through forced labor?
The specific answer to is: However you measure its "value" (economic growth, freedom, death count?) the German rulership in its colony Deutsch-Ostafrika (DOA) was "bad" in pretty much every way. In contrast to Deutsch-Südwestafrika (German South West Africa), DOA was never supposed to be a settlers colony, but only existed for exploitation of the local population. The colony was controlled by various Kolonialgesellschaften (colonial companies) after the German army had conquered the land.
The Germans in fact never ended slavery here, because they deemed it absolutely necessary for the local economy. Around 1900, 10 % of the population were house slaves (see Conrad: Deutsche Kolonialgeschichte). In addition, the cultivation of cotton and rubber relied heavily on forced labor. The oppression and heavy taxation led to the Maji Maji Rebellion in 1905, which the Germans answered to with utmost brutality, relying in part on Askaris, trained soldiers from the local population. The retaliations included the burning of villages and crops, the sealing of wells etc., which led to a hunger catastrophe that killed about 250.000 people.
Also, during the whole duration of World War I, DOA was defended against British and French troops. German General Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck pointlessly kept fighting while marauding through the whole colony, devastating large areas and – also through the emerging hunger crisis – directly and indirectly killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in over four years, many of whom where forced to work for his army as carriers.
If anyone thinks they can set this off against a few hundred miles of railroad tracks, I would end the discussion then and there.
Thank you everyone! We read all the answers in class today and had a great discussion!