In 2004 the genocidal war fought by the Imperial German Empire against the indigenous populations of central and southern Namibia had its centennial. Was this just one more commemorative event the media chose to focus on? The review presented here shows that the centennial of this colonial war and its gruesome aftermath may indeed be of great significance both for Germany and for Namibia. During the course of the year 2004, governments, committees and activists organized commemorative events, negotiated memorandums and discussed claims for or against reparations. These events and discourses are still of relevance four years later. They shape intergovernmental negotiations, internal politics in Namibia and discussions in Germany on the country's colonial past.

In a short introduction, Melber emphasizes that, for the contributors to this volume, the historical reality of the genocide was the common point for departure. In a highly convincing way Melber outlines how a genocidal practice developed from a vicious mixture of feelings of white supremacy and latent anxieties about violent conflict. The main impetus of the volume, however, is not so much the reconstruction of events and processes of the year 1904 – authors contributing to this volume (notably Zimmerer and Gewald) have published widely on the dynamics of the war of 1904. The aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the recent debates on the genocidal war, both in Namibian and in German society. Zimmerer's paper has a comparative agenda. It draws lines between dominant mentalities, actors, strategies and events shaping the Namibian genocide, on the one hand, and genocides elsewhere on the globe. In a concise way Zimmerer gives the main causes for the war of 1904 and briefly depicts its general course. He then concentrates on events and activities he sees as crucial in the degeneration of the war into a genocide. He emphasizes that the conflict enters its genocidal phase after the war proper had already come to an end. General von Trotha's order to shoot at Herero people on sight targeted an opponent who was already defeated. Zimmerer carefully weighs up the contents and intention of von Trotha's order to shoot. In passing, Zimmerer also addresses the less well-documented war of Germany's imperial troops in the latter part of the year 1904 and in 1905 in southern Namibia against the Nama community. A major part of his contribution focuses on the politics and the practice of the concentration camps, which were mainly located on Namibia's coast. The mass-internment of entire communities (and not just of rebels) was not only meant to prevent the outbreak of further rebellious activities. It was also intended to clear land for the expansion of a settler colony. It was a commonly accepted idea that only once modern farming practices were established on the land and competing traditional practices were eliminated could a colony prosper. In a detailed way Zimmerer describes the catastrophic circumstances of the internment camp on Shark Island just off the coast near the southern Namibian town of Lüderitz: a great number of prisoners died there due to the highly insufficient supply of food, medicine and clothing. Their death was willingly accepted within the framework of a perfidious logic of extermination. It is Zimmerer's great merit to portray attitudes and opinions on the side of the Germans in a differentiated manner: the idea of the enemy's extermination was contested and vociferously critiqued by contemporary observers. Opponents to the policy of General von Trotha were to be found in the army but also among missionaries. However, these opponents could not significantly influence the politics towards prisoners for four decisive years. In a final paragraph, Zimmerer places the genocide of Herero and Nama in a broader context and compares it with the genocide of the Australian aborigines. In a reflected manner he also discusses continuities between Germany's genocidal war in Namibia and the genocide of the European Jews. The comparative agenda followed up here is thought-provoking and the juxtaposition of cases provides a more differentiated perspective on the single case.

The contribution by Reinhart Kössler looks at the politics of remembrance in Namibia. In a theoretically orientated introductory paragraph Kössler discusses the linkages between history and memory in order to delineate remembrance as a continuously evolving, culturally – as much as politically – informed process. Often remembrance is localized and tied to specific places. Specific groups of actors construe landscapes of memory with their own political agendas in mind. In ritual and oral tradition, places of remembrance are constituted. With this theoretical perspective in mind, Kössler then carries on to elucidate the manifold ways in which various Namibian actors and groups constitute the commemoration of the genocide. Remembrance in Namibia is situated in a society, which is characterized by a high degree of inequality, and economic as much as cultural disparities. Nevertheless, social sub-groups do not create their perspectives on history independently; discourses are often tightly interwoven. In a complex and highly ambiguous way, the state often impacts these discourses and launches its own version of historical facts.

Jan-Bart Gewald and Henning Melber's contribution also deals with the commemoration of the genocide in Namibia. They focus on the politics of remembrance among the Herero and in the ruling party SWAPO, thereby concentrating the debate on two key groups in the debate. They explore to what extent internal debates on the genocide have contributed to identity constructs. The first paragraphs are devoted to a historical reconstruction of the process of social and cultural reconsolidation of the survivors of the genocide after the fall of the German colonial state in 1915. It is shown that reference to the genocide was indeed crucial in the process of ethnic resurgence, which rapidly evolved in the 1920s and 1930s. In a well-founded argument, it is shown that the reconsolidation of a traumatized community is primarily based on the concept of a homogeneous ‘traditional’ society meeting colonial oppressors at eye-level and fighting heroically for its land and wealth in livestock. Ancestral rituals and other religious practices are construed as continuities between pre-genocide and post-genocide society. The ruling party SWAPO ‘discovered’ the topic of genocide when it was still active as a liberation front in the pre-1990 period. SWAPO focused not so much on the genocide but rather on the heroic deeds of anti-colonial resistance. In a final paragraph, the authors discuss to what extent a state can co-opt other forms of memory by ‘colonizing’ public space and inscribing its version of history onto the landscape. Gigantic monuments are in line with canonized, hegemonic versions of remembrance. Whether they finally contribute to the muting of other forms of collective remembrance remains to be seen in the future.

There is no space to discuss the other highly interesting papers in this volume. All in all, the volume at hand offers a good overview of the debate on the genocide and presents the Namibian side as well as the German side. Clearly, it is the view of scholars on the debate. While it is apparent that the historians' and social scientists' positions impact on the debate, I would still think that their views and opinions strive for a higher degree of objectivity and impartiality than those of activists and political decision-makers. The volume is of great help to all those Germans and Namibians dealing with the other side professionally as scholars and politicians. It is a clear-cut and very readable account of the debate on the genocide.