If one attempts to understand colonialist thinking, a very fruitful approach can be found in the analysis of “colonial discourse”.2 As colonialism itself is connected to the “mentality” of the...Show moreIf one attempts to understand colonialist thinking, a very fruitful approach can be found in the analysis of “colonial discourse”.2 As colonialism itself is connected to the “mentality” of the colonizer, so must colonial violence be.3 As Kuss has noted, “The conduct by the German military of their colonial wars was affected by […] the domestic national discourse.”4 The genocide against the Herero and Nama of Namibia is certainly one of the darkest chapters of German history. Now, more than 100 years later, it is necessary to ask the right questions in order to avoid further harm and to address Germany’s colonial history and legacy in a meaningful way. In an attempt to do this, the analysis laid out in this paper aims at discussing the question “how were the Herero of Namibia constructed in German colonial discourse, 1900-1918?”, through an analysis of the discourse on the Herero found German colonial literature and anthropology. For this purpose, the works of Foucault, Said, and Kim are used throughout the paper. In the past, there was a long-standing “repression” of Germany’s colonial past and the country has only recently made an attempt at addressing its colonial heritage.5 As Schilling has argued, this development is vitally important since features of past discourses continue to influence the way Germany deals with its Others. An analysis of the colonial-era discourse on the Herero is therefore of practical value in the fight against structural injustices. Using two analytical frameworks, Said’s Orientalism and Kim’s borderlands, the paper supports the thesis that the discourse on the Herero in colonial Germany between 1900 and 1918 frames the Herero as the Orientalized and less-than-human Other.Show less
