Structural Underpinning of the Genocidal Setting

AS early as 1902, authorities in German South West Africa distinguished between ‘Eingeborene’ (indigenous) and ‘Buschleute’ (Bushmen). The latter, unlike Herero and Nama, were allegedly ‘untamable’.

Power is the ability to control what people desire. In Namibia, this was pre-eminently money and livestock. San people had no desires that could be controlled or regulated. Like wild animals, they supposedly occupied, but did not possess land, and thus their territory was defined as vacant land that could be taken over by settlers.

Unlike Latin America, where Christianity provided a major justification for exterminating indigenous people, in Namibia that role was provided by racist science.

Academic rank was second only to the military regarding social standing in Germany. Scientists who worked in the region, like professor Passarge, claimed that the San were incapable of adapting and thus should be destroyed. Similarly, professor Schultze, famous for creating that hoary imaginary group, the Khoisan, concluded that Bushmen should be killed off like the predators they were. The emerging consensus was that Bushmen were ‘untamable’.

Almost universally, they explained the decline in San numbers not to resistance to settler invasion but to an ‘inability to adapt’, thus providing settlers with moral absolution – a classic case of blaming the victim. Other scientists argued for their placement in a reserve in the interests not of humanity, but of science.

Some ‘liberal’ officials argued that children could be habituated to work, and thus, captured children were separated from their families and placed with selected farmers to learn the dignity of labour.

Other structural features sustained this Platzgeist (atmosphere).

Farmers dominated the Landestag, the council created to advise the governor, and succeeded in having draconian ordinances passed, shackling indigenous labour, but constantly doubted the effectiveness of these laws, blaming inadequate policing.

While officials disparaged them as “little kings”, their influence cowed mission inspector Spiecker to comment on a report of atrocities committed against the San: “These are sad, outrageous incidents. We are better off to be reticent about giving an opinion.”

The major source of state revenue before the discovery of diamonds in 1908 was taxes on alcohol. There was a licenced tavern for every 73 settlers. Windhoek, with fewer than 1 000 inhabitants, had some 24 clubs and associations. Coming to town, farmers would visit taverns and clubs where they would engage in intense face-to-face interactions with fellow settlers in a network that sustained the Platzgeist.

The role of alcohol in facilitating genocidal actions is well documented.

Demographics were the most important structural feature. The number of settlers increased from 4 600 in 1903 to 14 800, the size of a small town in Germany. Males outnumbered females by five to one. Where there are large concentrations of virile single men, the propensity to violence is exacerbated.

At Grootfontein, settlement commissioner Rohrbach noted that farmers with concubines were as common as enjoying breakfast. The 1918 Blue Book on German treatment of indigenes concluded: “The chief cause of all the trouble between Germans and Bushmen was that the Germans would persist in taking the Bushwomen from their husbands and using them as concubines”.

It claimed that at Grootfontein “the whole district is full of these German-Bushwomen cross-breeds”.

Fearful of San retribution, many settlers believed it was best pre-empted by killing San.

Undoubtedly, insecurity, generated by uneconomical farming practices, an unstable climate with great ecological variability, and limited market outlets, was key. Between 1907 and 1913, the size of cattle herds quadrupled while cattle prices plummeted from 300 to 100 Marks.

In 1910 alone, the territory received some 5 766 immigrants while 4 835 emigrated, indicative of the failure of farming.

Why has this genocide been neglected? Even today, one still finds talk of ‘wild’ and ‘tame’ San with ominous connotations of being non-human. Despite talk of respecting San people and lauding their ancient skills, are we still subconsciously racist?

– Robert Gordon is an anthropologist. His publications include ‘The Bushman Myth Revisited: Genocide, Dispossession and the Road to Servitude’ (Unam Press, 2025).

In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch. It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.