In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

71 Sex and Control in Germany’s Overseas Possessions Venereal Disease and Indigenous Agency Daniel J. Walther After Germany gained territories in Africa and the Pacific in the 1880s, the introduction of colonial rule brought political, economic, and social disruption to the populations directly and indirectly under German rule. One area where this was particularly evident was in the spread of sexual transmitted diseases (STDs) and in the public health campaign to stop their spread. Colonial physicians saw the proliferation of these diseases as undermining German attempts to establish and maintain colonial order. The efforts to combat their spread further justified German colonial rule and hence provided opportunities for Germany to extend its domination over its colonial subjects. However, much to the frustration of these doctors, the success of their policies largely depended on the actions of those at whom the various measures were directed. Indeed, the decisions and behavior of non-­ elite indigenes directly impacted the efficacy of these programs. Some autochthons did not comply with German regulatory requirements for prostitutes; compulsory health examinations for indigenous laborers, soldiers, the wives of soldiers, and prostitutes; enforced medical treatments for those found infected; and educational programs . Their tactics and motivations varied, but collectively their non-­ violent, non-­ confrontational actions contributed to limiting the success of these various measures aimed at reducing spread of STDs, at least according to German health officials. Simultaneously, some indigenes did willingly register as prostitutes , allowed themselves to be examined for STDs, underwent treatment until cured, and heeded the health advice shared by German colonial physicians. Like those who did not conform to German expectations, they had their own motivations, but nonetheless they did contribute in part to the success of these measures. In both types of responses, their actions do not necessary need to be viewed exclusively as either resistance to or compliance with German require- 72    German Colonialism Revisited ments and expectations. Rather, those who took a particular action also did so in accordance with their own agendas.1 Consequently, this study examines how everyday indigenes responded to German public health measures to stop the spread of STDs, how their actions caused colonial authorities to adapt their approaches to combating this health concern, and ultimately how their practices impacted the efficacy of these measures. Moreover, it will also suggest the reasons that motivated individuals to pursue a particular action and, in doing so, will provide a glimpse into the impact colonialism had on the everyday lives of autochthonous peoples and the various ways they responded to these changes. Thus, this essay will give voice to those who experienced German colonialism every day, and further our understanding of the extent and simultaneously the limitations of German colonial hegemony throughout its overseas empire. Overwhelmingly, the literature on indigenous responses to German colonialism explores the more obvious forms of opposition, namely, armed and collective. Moreover, those that do explore the actors also tend to focus on the elites.2 These approaches are readily apparent in the burgeoning historiography of the Nama and Herero Wars in German Southwest Africa.3 Thus, most do not examine the everyday encounters of commoners with their colonial interlopers . Andreas Eckert does do this to a degree in his Die Duala und die Kolonialm ächte, but ultimately he focuses on elites within society.4 In a case study, Philipp Prein explores non-­ violent opposition to German colonialism in Southwest Africa, yet it too focuses on collective action.5 As the works of James Scott and Detlev Peukert have shown, opposition to a hegemonic power manifested itself in a wide array of often apparently insignificant ways.6 Obviously, outright resistance did take place in the colonial setting. However, there were also actions taken that were often non-­ violent and individualistic, usually amounting to nonconformity and not outright opposition or resistance. Even if there was an act of outright protest, it may not have been directed at the colonial system per se, but rather at a particular policy or action on the part of the authorities. However, when viewed collectively, these individual acts had a substantial impact on the colonial enterprise and revealed the degree to which the objects of control accepted or rejected the values being imposed upon them by colonial authorities. Moreover, “[w]hatever the response [of the colonized], we must not miss the fact that [their] action[s] . . . changed or narrowed the policy options available to the state.”7 Scott called these acts “everyday forms of resistance.”8 The study of colonialism is...

Share