About Adolf Hitler being elected in Namibia: Should I be offended?

Herero chained during the rebellion against 

German colonial power in 1904

I don’t know. Some friends told me, “no.” Why be offended? Adolf Hitler won a local election in Namibia. Actually, his full name is Adolf Hitler Uunona. He was elected as a councillor for the Ompundja constituency. But why I should not be offended? In this era of generalized “offensiveness”, there is always a good reason to be offended (and also, to apologize when someone claims that you offended her/him). 

Adolf Hitler Uunona told to the German newspaper Bild that he has no intention of dominating the world (what a relief!). Mr. A.H. Uunona thinks that his father was not aware of Hitler’s ideas and deeds when decided to name his son after the founder of the Nazi regime. He also explained that he grew up in total innocence about the implications of having that name. "It wasn't until I was growing up that I realised: This man wanted to subjugate the whole world," said Mr. A.H. Uunona. 

He won his seat in the local council with 85% of the votes. He ran under the banner of the Swapo party, the one that led the independence of the country from South Africa and fought colonial and white-minority rule. It could be said that the party of Mr. A.H. Uunona is anti-racist. 

A BBC report reminds us that Namibia was a German colony between 1884 and 1915 (as part of a territory called “German South West Africa”). The German Empire killed thousands during the revolt of aboriginal Nama, Herero and San people, of what has been called “the forgotten genocide.” Namibia refused 10 million euros offered by Germany for reparations. The Namibian government continues to negotiate for a “revised offer.”

With such a sombre past marked by massive killings and racism, one could expect more sensibility from the part of Mr. A. H. Uunona. For example, he could have dropped the “Hitler” particle of his first name. Maybe his father didn’t know, but Mr. A.H. Uunona has no excuse. He should know about Hitler’s responsibility in the persecution and killing of millions of human beings, the biggest genocide in human history. 

What about of those who voted for Mr. A.H. Uunona? Maybe they are too young to know, or maybe they don’t give a damn, or maybe they have other priorities in their lives that caring about Hitler’s nefarious record. But Mr. A.H. Uunona could have used his name as a “pedagogical opportunity” to educate Namibians about the relatively recent criminal past of Nazi Germany, its allies and accomplices. To be named Adolf Hitler in an educational context is not the same as to use that name in a rally of a neo-Nazi party. No?

Mr. A.H. Uunona prefers to keep his name in full. His wife called him just Adolf. 

Should I be offended? No. Stupidity is equally distributed among the racist and among those who claim to be anti-racist. 

About my own experience: Discussing Nazi ideas in the classroom

I would like to contribute from the point of view of my own experience as professor at University of Ottawa to the current debate about academic freedom and racism. I used to do an exercise with students in the master seminar on Public Communication Campaigns that I’ve taught for several years. I proposed the students to read 10 principles of propaganda, drafted by one of the fathers of these persuasion techniques, and translate them into the language of modern advertising and marketing. Before doing the exercise, I did not disclose the name of the author of the 10 principles. After discussing these principles and their connection with advertising and marketing, I disclosed the name of this person: Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi ministry of propaganda, an anti-Semite that contributed with his speech and action to the extermination of Jews, Roma people, gays, human beings with disabilities, political dissidents, among others. 

Some of the students were surprised to discover the connection between Nazi propaganda and modern persuasion techniques. Some others were not as surprised. We discussed the ethical, theoretical and practical implications of this connection. But I never was denounced as a “Nazi” for bringing Goebbels’s principles to the classroom in the context of an analytical and critical exercise. Nobody accused me of being a “traitor to the Jews” (being myself Jewish) or even a “Nazi” for bringing into the classroom the ideas of Goebbels. The discussion was always respectful, rational and constructive. 

Someone would say that I was “allowed” to bring Nazi ideas into debate in the classroom because I am entitled to do so as a Jew. This is nonsense. I don’t have a privilege to talk in exclusivity about Nazism, anti-Semitism or even Judaism or the Jewish experience because my identity (that is actually a little more complex because I was born in Morocco, raised in Venezuela, moved to Canada, speak Spanish, etc.). On the contrary, I would like others (non-Jews) to study and understand the Jewish perspective, and talk about it. I don’t have that privilege, even if I’ve experienced anti-Semitism and fought against discrimination and hate speech all my life as a journalist and professor. 

Reason should prevail in the current debate. The incitation to violence, hate speech, bullying, intimidation should be denounced. Academic freedom should be protected.  Racism and discrimination should always be condemned.