Written in french at the bottom of this panel is “traits de protection et d’amitié” (traits of protection and friendship) and intersecting this phrase is “selon le droit de ce temps-lá” (according to the law of that time). The colonial violations depicted above were justified by colonizers as either beneficial to the development of their colonies or at the very least not punishable by the laws in place at that time of violation.

The line in which the footsteps cross is labeled in french “cour de justice” which means “court of justice”.

All the outlined steps represent futile actions, but filled in footsteps are toe to toe in the legal sphere where “restitution” is written, representing a claim filed in an American court.

There is great significance to these footprints entering the present and resisting the efforts of colonial powers to create a perceived distance between them and their colonial actions, pushing them into the “distant past”. In her text “Statues Also Die, Even…”, María Íñigo Clavo reflects upon the anthropological tendency to create a “cherished distance between the scholar and his/her object of study” which deterritorialized and detemporalizes the people, materials, and cultures in which they are studying in favor of a “scientific objectivity”. This practice has contributed to the primitivist vision that continues to objectify and decontextualize cultural materials of the “Other”. (Clavo, 2014)

This element highlights the difficulty to bring the German government to justice and their persistent claim that they cannot be legally reprimanded for actions of the past under current laws.

• Defendants (deutche bank, Terex co, and Deutsche Afrika-Linien Gmbh) written underneath the outlined heels (heels of the footprints are not filled in representing their claim that they are outside the realm of persecution)
• Their names during colonial times (deutche bank, Orenstein-Koppel, and Woermann Line) are written under the filled in toes of the footprints, showing their colonial presence and crimes they committed “crossing a line” (Sarkin, 2017)

The Alien Tort Claims Act which gives the United States jurisdiction to rule on cases of “foreign nationals claiming violations of international law” (Sarkin, 2017). (The words Alien Tort Claims Act is also written on the line the Herero footprints cross.) * Many civil cases have been filed recently under the Alien Torts Claims Act claiming similar violations including numerous cases related to the Holocaust which resulted in reparative payments. These cases set precedent to an increasing willingness to legally reprimand genocidal actions, however it also highlights a difference in perception between the Holocaust, a genocide which occured in Europe, and colonial genocides that occurred in Africa less than 50 years prior. One is more commonly characterized as a modern genocide and seen as still relevant today, whereas colonial actions are often presented as happening “a long time ago” and therefore less relevant to today.

“Kindergarten, weltschmerz, blitzkrieg are three German words that have found their way into other European languages. But there is also an African language that has borrowed words from German, words such as omboroto from the German word Brot (bread), otjihauto from Auto(car) and oturupa from Truppe (troop). In the Herero language, spoken by roughly 180,000 people in Namibia, the German loanword oturupa signifies not the soldiers of the German Reich, which colonized South West Africa and subjugated its people between 1884 and 1915, but rather the Herero people’s own “troop”, an institution that was established with reference to the German army but today is seen as a genuine home-grown Herero tradition.The history of the word and of the institution of the oturupa reveals a significant aspect of colonial history in Africa – the fact that European goods, ideas and practices were not just imported and imposed, but also actively appropriated, redefined and given new meaning by the local population. This led to new forms of religious and social practice, artistic expression and political organization, all of which can only be explained by recourse to the reciprocal influence of the two cultures” (Förster, 2005).

This panel shows filled in triangles (which represent european powers / actors), outlined triangles (representing spheres of political and economic influence), and clear oval pattern (representing terra nullius, unclaimed and exploitable land). White lines spread across the panel representing the Congo River, however these spindle-like river arms also resemble cracks, carving through the land as the colonial powers carved up territory.

Civilized is also crossed out, as the judgment of civilized and uncivilized was ultimately made by European powers with self asserted superiority “that perspective imagined modernity and rationality as exclusively European products and experiences. From this point of view, intersubjective and cultural relations between Western Europe and the rest of the world were codified in a strong play of new categories: East-West, primitive-civilized, magic/mythic-scientific, irrational-rational, traditional-modern — Europe and not Europe.” (Quijano, 2000, p542)

International is crossed out, an artistic choice which calls to attention the fallacy of a true international community but rather an exclusionary, eurocentric community.

This section lists the participants of the Congo Conference (European powers) in one box, and those who were “excluded from participating”: African states, kingdoms, and political communities that were not recognized as members of the “international” community / the community of “civilized” states

Bismarck opens the doors (bottom of the page) to the conference room where all powers are represented by a labeled triangle on the edges, but in doing this also opens the metaphorical doors to Africa, to exploitation, and to setting legal pathways for occupation

Wilhelmstrasse 77 is written in orange on the left side (where the perron refered to is depicted) which is the address at which the Congo Conference was held.

outdoor stairway leading into a building

“Appropriation of livestock… and forbidding ownership” Another facet of effective occupation involved the disenfranchisement of indigenous populations, taking away their way of life and means of sustenance, demonstrating that only Europeans could economically benefit in the colonial system.

The demonstration of effective occupation involved “expulsion of native populations from communally owned land… and appropriation of land for settlers”. Colonial powers imposed a Eurocentric view of land ownership involving domination and extraction, in line with the widespread conception of Protectorate land through an economic lens. This viewpoint contrasts and disregards ideas of sustainable and communal land stewardship held by indigenous populations.

alternative documentation of these orders read: “General Lothar von Trotha decreed: “The Herero people will have to leave the country. Otherwise I shall force them to do so by means of guns. Within the German boundaries, every Herero, whether found armed or unarmed, with or without cattle, will be shot. I shall not accept any more women or children. I shall drive them back to their people – otherwise I shall order them to be shot. Signed: the Great General of the Mighty Kaiser, von Trotha” (Sarkin, 2017).

“General Lothar von Trotha issued his infamous extermination proclamation in October 1904 after defeating the Herero at the Battle of Waterberg: “I, the great General of the German soldiers, send this letter to the Herero people. The Herero are no longer German subjects. . . . The Herero nation . . . must leave the country. If they do not leave, I will force them out with the Groot Rohr (cannon). Every Herero, armed or unarmed, will be shot within the German borders. I will no longer accept women and children, but will force them back to their people or shoot at them” (Baer, 2017, p 64).

Early maps show land ownership and the location of mines and minerals in German South West Africa (modern day Namibia). Examining these maps show where the priorities of colonial powers lie: identifying sites for their extractive practices.

Chapter VI: ignores possibility of indigenous sovereignty. Amongst the members of the Congo Conference, Africa was seen as ‘terra nullius’: unclaimed or no man’s territory. Therefore, the need for a “universal” legal pathway to recognized occupation was deemed necessary. Once a colonial power demonstrated effective occupation through administration of governance and settlement, the territory could be assumed as a Protectorate. * terra nullius described by the signatory powers as “the ‘ideal’ colony of the future as a maximally expanded, state claim to territory demanding a minimum of military-administrative effort.” (Schmidt, 2010)

Chapters 1 through 5 outline the freedom of trade between signatory powers, including the slave trade, across “neutral territory”, and ensured free navigation of the rivers Congo and Niger, vital waterways that enabled trade flexibility.

Chapter 6 outlines the rules of effective occupation for the future colonization of territories in Africa These main articles outline the priorities of Great Powers at the Congo Conference, their exploitative mindset, and the legal pathway they laid out to justify further occupation.