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.

Columns Of The Last 48 Hours

•  Let Us Heed the Voices of Sanity
•  Political Perspective
•  Andimba Ya Toivo's Political Morality: A Weapon To Transcend The Logic Of Cruelty
•  Rural Water Supply Reform: Success Story And Poverty Trap
•  From the Sidelines: Time for change