The example from Rhodesia helps to shows us how Europe’s colonial past is genocidal. The
experience of Rhodesians under British Colonial rule has been discussed by various historians,
such as Robert Blake and Terence Ranger. The British an almost superiority above the local
population through their decision to redistribute the Rhodesian land amongst British settlers at the
expense of the local population. When the local population rose up in rebellion against these
practices, the British leader in the region, Cecil Rhodes, ordered his South African Company to
brutally murder thousands of the local population. These attacks are clearly having an impact on
contemporaries as is shown by a letter sent from Lord Jarvin informing his wife that ‘‘I hope the
natives will be pretty well exterminated…our plan of campaign will probably be to…wipe them
out’. This feeling was also echoed by a local missionary who stated that ‘‘the only chance for the
future of the [Mashona] race is to exterminate the whole people, both male and female, over the
age of 14.’
The example from Ethiopia also helps to show how Europe’s colonial past is genocidal. •
There is also the fact that there were oter actions throughout the continent that were actually
more gruesome than those in Namibia. For example, the trade of ivory and rubber that lasted
between c.1855 and 1920 in the Belgian Congo saw the Europeans either working to death or
killing 10 million Africans. Joseph Conrad claimed that it was ‘the vilest scramble for loot that
ever disfigured the history of human conscience and geographical exploration.’ The Italian
Colonial Minister Alessandro Lessona practice a policy of ‘Ethiopia without Ethiopians’, by
killed around ¼ million Ethiopian people between 1935 and 1939.
A famous revisionist on the topic of colonialism and genocide is Justin McCarthy, who
specialises in the later Ottoman Empire. McCarthy denies that the killings of around a million
Armenians in 1915 ever constituted a conscious effort on the behalf of the Ottoman Empire to
exterminate the Armenian ethnic group. McCarthy points at successful attempts by Armenian
groups to kill millions of Muslims in the Ottoman Empire as well as the famine and disease
common in the period to prove that there was no attempt at the state level to commit a genocide
against this ethnic group.
Interviewer: Welcome to this podcast that will discuss the history of European imperialism. Today
the discussion will cover whether European colonialism was genocidal in nature. The academics here
today will examine the question ‘Is Europe’s Colonial Past Genocidal?’. According to the Oxford
Dictionary, ‘colonialism’ means ‘the policy . . . of acquiring full or partial political control over
another country, occupying it with settlers and exploiting it economically’. Similarly, he Oxford
Dictionary defines ‘genocide’ as ‘the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of
a particular nation or ethnic group’. This is quite a broad definition, do our panellists have anything
to add to it?
For: The most important reference point is Raphael Lemkin’s definition of genocide. He developed
the term in 1943, in response to mass killings in Europe, such as in German Southwest Africa and the
Turks’ deportation of the Armenians. The term ‘genocide’ describes varied attempts to limit all
aspects of a groups’ existence, be that religious, political or social. His full definition says it ‘is the
extermination of a national, religious or racial group by a variety of actions aimed at undermining
the foundations essential to the survival of the group’.
Against: Furthermore, it is important to add that built off the back of Lemkin’s work the UN released
a declaration in 1948 which specifically set out the criteria for what genocide looked like to the UN.
The five main aspects of the declaration include (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious
experience of Rhodesians under British Colonial rule has been discussed by various historians,
such as Robert Blake and Terence Ranger. The British an almost superiority above the local
population through their decision to redistribute the Rhodesian land amongst British settlers at the
expense of the local population. When the local population rose up in rebellion against these
practices, the British leader in the region, Cecil Rhodes, ordered his South African Company to
brutally murder thousands of the local population. These attacks are clearly having an impact on
contemporaries as is shown by a letter sent from Lord Jarvin informing his wife that ‘‘I hope the
natives will be pretty well exterminated…our plan of campaign will probably be to…wipe them
out’. This feeling was also echoed by a local missionary who stated that ‘‘the only chance for the
future of the [Mashona] race is to exterminate the whole people, both male and female, over the
age of 14.’
The example from Ethiopia also helps to show how Europe’s colonial past is genocidal. •
There is also the fact that there were oter actions throughout the continent that were actually
more gruesome than those in Namibia. For example, the trade of ivory and rubber that lasted
between c.1855 and 1920 in the Belgian Congo saw the Europeans either working to death or
killing 10 million Africans. Joseph Conrad claimed that it was ‘the vilest scramble for loot that
ever disfigured the history of human conscience and geographical exploration.’ The Italian
Colonial Minister Alessandro Lessona practice a policy of ‘Ethiopia without Ethiopians’, by
killed around ¼ million Ethiopian people between 1935 and 1939.
A famous revisionist on the topic of colonialism and genocide is Justin McCarthy, who
specialises in the later Ottoman Empire. McCarthy denies that the killings of around a million
Armenians in 1915 ever constituted a conscious effort on the behalf of the Ottoman Empire to
exterminate the Armenian ethnic group. McCarthy points at successful attempts by Armenian
groups to kill millions of Muslims in the Ottoman Empire as well as the famine and disease
common in the period to prove that there was no attempt at the state level to commit a genocide
against this ethnic group.
Interviewer: Welcome to this podcast that will discuss the history of European imperialism. Today
the discussion will cover whether European colonialism was genocidal in nature. The academics here
today will examine the question ‘Is Europe’s Colonial Past Genocidal?’. According to the Oxford
Dictionary, ‘colonialism’ means ‘the policy . . . of acquiring full or partial political control over
another country, occupying it with settlers and exploiting it economically’. Similarly, he Oxford
Dictionary defines ‘genocide’ as ‘the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of
a particular nation or ethnic group’. This is quite a broad definition, do our panellists have anything
to add to it?
For: The most important reference point is Raphael Lemkin’s definition of genocide. He developed
the term in 1943, in response to mass killings in Europe, such as in German Southwest Africa and the
Turks’ deportation of the Armenians. The term ‘genocide’ describes varied attempts to limit all
aspects of a groups’ existence, be that religious, political or social. His full definition says it ‘is the
extermination of a national, religious or racial group by a variety of actions aimed at undermining
the foundations essential to the survival of the group’.
Against: Furthermore, it is important to add that built off the back of Lemkin’s work the UN released
a declaration in 1948 which specifically set out the criteria for what genocide looked like to the UN.
The five main aspects of the declaration include (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious
