Interviewer: Welcome to this podcast for A-Level History students. 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’. The 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 coined 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: I agree. However, 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 their legal criteria for a genocide. This holds
great importance regarding the definition/criteria for genocide. The five main aspects of the
declaration include (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group, (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births
within the group and (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. However, I
think it is important to point out as Martin Shaw did in 2007 that the convention excludes the
‘annihilation of groups defined by other characteristics such as class or political affiliation’ despite
political groups being the most persecuted group since WW2.
Interviewer: Wow, there really is a lot of contention regarding the definition. Let’s get into the heart
of the debate. Bob, briefly, what is your initial response to the question?
For: Well, from my research I would argue that Europe’s colonial past is inherently genocidal
because the West caused genocides in their colonies. Many historians corroborate this idea. A key
historian here is Jurgen Zimmerer in his argument that genocide is requisite for imperial
development in colonies. Many historians refer to his arguments and evidence to back up their
points that agree. For example, Benjamin Madley agrees with Zimmerer. Madley would similarly
subscribe to the idea that European colonial history is fundamentally genocidal. In other words,
imperial actions and the formation of Europe’s colonial map would be fundamentally different if
genocides had not occurred.
Interviewer: How interesting! Wow, how does Madley come to this conclusion, it seems so extreme!
Against: Madley’s draws up a case study which links Genocides committed in the German colony
German South West Africa (modern day Namibia) and the Nazi Genocide against the Jews during the
Holocaust in WW2. These links drawn up by Madley have been paramount in building my argument
that European colonialism was predominantly genocidal due to the obvious structural, political and
mechanical similarities that can be drawn up between the two events – with the latter being the
most deadly/systematic extermination system in history. Medley’s links are important as they go
much further than simply providing evidence that the actions against the Herero and Nama by the
Germans was similar in nature than that against the Jews by the Nazis. Although the scale of each
genocide cannot be contrasted as around 40,000 to 70,000 Hereros were systematically killed along
with 6,000 to 7,500 Nama –compared to the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust although this
does not mean they are not dissimilar in rhetoric.
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’. The 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 coined 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: I agree. However, 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 their legal criteria for a genocide. This holds
great importance regarding the definition/criteria for genocide. The five main aspects of the
declaration include (a) killing members of the group, (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group, (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births
within the group and (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. However, I
think it is important to point out as Martin Shaw did in 2007 that the convention excludes the
‘annihilation of groups defined by other characteristics such as class or political affiliation’ despite
political groups being the most persecuted group since WW2.
Interviewer: Wow, there really is a lot of contention regarding the definition. Let’s get into the heart
of the debate. Bob, briefly, what is your initial response to the question?
For: Well, from my research I would argue that Europe’s colonial past is inherently genocidal
because the West caused genocides in their colonies. Many historians corroborate this idea. A key
historian here is Jurgen Zimmerer in his argument that genocide is requisite for imperial
development in colonies. Many historians refer to his arguments and evidence to back up their
points that agree. For example, Benjamin Madley agrees with Zimmerer. Madley would similarly
subscribe to the idea that European colonial history is fundamentally genocidal. In other words,
imperial actions and the formation of Europe’s colonial map would be fundamentally different if
genocides had not occurred.
Interviewer: How interesting! Wow, how does Madley come to this conclusion, it seems so extreme!
Against: Madley’s draws up a case study which links Genocides committed in the German colony
German South West Africa (modern day Namibia) and the Nazi Genocide against the Jews during the
Holocaust in WW2. These links drawn up by Madley have been paramount in building my argument
that European colonialism was predominantly genocidal due to the obvious structural, political and
mechanical similarities that can be drawn up between the two events – with the latter being the
most deadly/systematic extermination system in history. Medley’s links are important as they go
much further than simply providing evidence that the actions against the Herero and Nama by the
Germans was similar in nature than that against the Jews by the Nazis. Although the scale of each
genocide cannot be contrasted as around 40,000 to 70,000 Hereros were systematically killed along
with 6,000 to 7,500 Nama –compared to the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust although this
does not mean they are not dissimilar in rhetoric.
