The claim that “colonialism was normal back then” distorts history, wounds the victims a second time, and obstructs global peace.
The claim that “colonialism was normal back then” distorts history, wounds the victims a second time, and obstructs global peace.
By Dr. Halim Gençoğlu
This article evaluates the claims allegedly expressed by some Western, particularly American, academics and commentators at the International Munich Peace Conference dated February 2026—such as “colonialism was normal back then, we are not ashamed of our past”—within the framework of the historical, ethical, and epistemic dimensions of the decolonization process. In this vein, through concrete cases such as the Mau Mau Rebellion (Kenya), the 1947 Malagasy Uprising (Madagascar), and the Herero-Nama Genocide (Namibia), we will attempt to examine the historical inaccuracy, moral problems, and contemporary implications of this relativist approach. The comparison with the Ottoman Empire’s administrative practice in Africa, by showing that colonial models are not uniform, reveals that the “normalization” discourse is a Euro-centric construction. The article argues that decolonization requires not only political independence but also a reckoning with historical memory and global justice; as a “lesson” directed at peace conferences, it emphasizes that confronting the past is a prerequisite for lasting peace.
The International Munich Peace Conference brings to the fore the themes of peace, human rights, and non-violent resistance as a civil-society alternative to the Munich Security Conference. However, certain Western academic and political discourses voiced in the context of the conference have legitimized the “not ashamed” attitude by reducing the history of colonialism to the “spirit of the age.” This approach is a reflection of a mentality that is said to “still exist in white families.” Indeed, colonial violence, racist hierarchy, and land dispossession are treated as “normal,” while criticism is dismissed as “judging the past by today’s standards.”
This article, drawing on decolonization theories such as Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (1961) and Achille Mbembe’s concept of necropolitics, analyzes how the perception in question disrupts the decolonization process. The central thesis is this: The “It was normal back then” discourse is both historically selective and ethically unsustainable; the Ottoman example, by reminding us of the multi-layered nature of colonial history, exposes the ideological construction of this discourse.
The Historical Reality of Colonial Violence: Atrocities That Were Not “Normal”
Nineteenth- and twentieth-century European colonialism rested on systematic violence masked by the rhetoric of the “civilizing mission” (mission civilisatrice). To give an example, in 1904 the Herero-Nama Genocide in German South West Africa saw General Lothar von Trotha’s “extermination order” (Vernichtungsbefehl) result in the slaughter of 65 percent of the Herero people (50–65 thousand individuals); the survivors were driven into the desert and subjected to starvation, thirst, and medical experiments in concentration camps. As Jürgen Zimmerer’s studies emphasize, this event is recognized as the first genocide of the twentieth century and shows continuity with the Nazi Holocaust.
Likewise, the event known as the 1947 Malagasy uprising—the heavy-handed French response to demands for independence in Madagascar—ended with the killing of approximately 100,000 Malagasy. Villages were burned, mass executions carried out, and while the uprising was branded “terrorism,” it became a massacre.
In 1952, in British Kenya, 1.5 million members of the Kikuyu people were confined to concentration camps under the name of “villagization” in response to their land demands; torture, sexual violence, castration, and executions were systematized. Caroline Elkins’s Britain’s Gulag (2005) reveals this “hidden genocide” through archival documents and eyewitness testimonies. Britain officially apologized in 2013 and was compelled to pay compensation.
These cases exceeded even the limits of “war crimes” under the international law of the period (1899/1907 Hague Conventions). Racist social Darwinism and the ideology of “white supremacy” rendered violence “necessary,” yet even some internal European opposition—such as the SPD—questioned these events. Relativism therefore contradicts historical facts.
The Decolonization Process and the Rejection of “Normalization”
Decolonization is not merely a change of flags but, as Fanon stated, the transformation of the colonial subject into a “new human being.” It means psychological liberation, epistemic emancipation, and material justice. The post-1945 UN Charter (Articles 1–2), the Bandung Conference (1955), and the 1960 UN Declaration on Decolonization universalized the principle of self-determination.
The argument “we should not judge by today’s standards” was refuted at the Nuremberg Tribunals (1945–46). Defenses such as “I was only following orders” or “it was the norm of the time” were rendered invalid. The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide enables retrospective moral accounting. Decolonization theorists (Walter Mignolo, Aníbal Quijano) describe this perception as the “coloniality of coloniality.” A power mechanism that still keeps knowledge production Western-centered, the “not ashamed” discourse in Munich precisely perpetuates this epistemic colonialism.
The Ottoman Empire’s Practice in Africa: A Different Imperial Model
The question is legitimate: Why did the Ottoman Empire not engage in systematic genocide and settler colonization on the scale of the Herero, Mau Mau, or Malagasy cases in Africa?
The Ottomans administered North African countries through the provincial system from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Local elites were left autonomous, legitimacy was secured through the Islamic Caliphate, and cultural autonomy was recognized beyond taxation and military service. In the nineteenth-century scramble for Africa, Ottoman policy on the Sahara and Red Sea coasts consisted of diplomatic relations and an effort to join the “family of civilized nations,” not European-style racist settler colonization.
In terms of governing nations, another noteworthy Ottoman practice also existed. According to archival documents, the Ottoman State granted a salary to families—regardless of race, religion, or region—who gave birth to twins or triplets, continuing until the children reached the age of 15.
For example, in 1896, in the village of Gorgor-ı Sagir in the Sürmene district of Trabzon Sanjak, a salary was allocated from local municipal revenues to the twin children of Musti oğlu Ahmed b. Osman. This practice was applied identically in regions outside Anatolia as far as Africa.
For instance, in 1895, in the Uceylat district of Tripoli in Libya, by order of the Istanbul Government, a salary was allocated to the twin children of Black Mesud and Black Ahmed from the Evlad-ı Fakiyye Tribe. Even non-Muslims were included in the practice. In 1895 in Salonika, a salary was allocated from the municipal fund to the twin children of the Jewish woman Binevde bint-ı Nesim. The fact that Jews, Greeks, and Armenians also benefited from the twin salary practice constitutes evidence of the Ottoman Empire’s equitable approach toward minorities.
Therefore, the Ottoman model was founded on suzerainty (upper sovereignty) rather than land usurpation, on the millet system rather than mass expulsion, and on religious-cultural embrace rather than race-based destruction. In other words, the industrial-scale massacres and camps that Europe implemented from the 1880s onward are not observed in Africa during the Ottoman period. This difference refutes the claim that “colonialism is universal.” Models are diverse, and the form of administration presented as “normal” in the West is Europe’s racist capitalist version applied on the old continent.
The Enduring Mentality in White Families and Neo-Colonialism
This perception is not merely academic; it is the “imperial nostalgia” transmitted across generations in certain Western families. Today, neocolonial practices (mining, debt traps, military interventions) continue with the same mentality. Decolonization, in Achille Mbembe’s words, is not yet “postcolonial” but remains a field of struggle that is “after colonial.” Addressing this discourse on platforms such as the Munich Peace Conference renders “historical justice”—the prerequisite of peace—obligatory.
Conclusion
The claim that “colonialism was normal back then” distorts history, wounds the victims a second time, and obstructs global peace. The decolonization process does not end with political independence; it must continue with truth and reconciliation commissions (such as South Africa’s TRC), reparations, and museum reforms. The Ottoman-Africa comparison proves that colonialism was not “inevitable”: other forms of governance are possible.
A lesson for the International Munich Peace Conference: Real peace is not built on “we are not ashamed of our past” but on “we honor our past by confronting it.” Otherwise, the cycle of violence is not broken; it merely changes its name. For future generations, epistemic and material decolonization is the shared responsibility of humanity.
References
Elkins, Caroline. Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. Jonathan Cape, 2005.
Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, 1963 [1961].
Gençoğlu, H. (2018). Ottoman traces in southern Africa: The impact of eminent Turkish emissaries and Muslim theologians. Libra Kitapçılık ve Yayıncılık.
Mbembe, Achille. Necropolitics. Duke University Press, 2019.
Zimmerer, Jürgen. Von Windhuk nach Auschwitz? Beiträge zum Verhältnis von Kolonialismus und Holocaust. LIT Verlag, 2011. Relativ