Genocide: How To Challenge Identity Politics In The 21st Century

Hello, welcome back to Conversations with Stephen Kamugasa. This is the third podcast episode in our Genocide series. Today's guest

is Dr. Jochen Lingelbach, a postdoctoral research assistant at the Chair of African History in the Cluster of Excellence at the University of Bayreuth. Dr. Lingelbach is a graduate of the University of Leipzig where he obtained a PhD in African Studies in 2018. Jochen is the author of On the Ages of Whiteness, Polish Refugees in British Colonial Africa During and After the Second World War. In this episode, We discuss the topic, genocide, how to challenge identity politics in the

21st century. Dr. Jochen Lindgobar, welcome. Yeah, thank you for the kind introduction, Stephen. And thank you for inviting me here and your interest in my work. Thank you.

It would seem that the old adage, when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. is accurate after all. Following his campaign on the platform of America First, Donald Trump was initially elected President of the United States of America in 2017. Immigration was one of Trump's platform's evocative themes. Immigration is a pressing political issue throughout Europe, with some fearing that it would turn liberal democracies

into illiberal hotbeds of bigotry. Europe is now on the verge of descending into a new dark age that would make a mockery of the 70 million plus lives lost during the Second World War in the effort to rid the world of the supremacist ideology of the

Nazis. Jochen, why is a nice German boy interested in the subject of immigration so much so that you have made a career of it as a scholar and is there something in your childhood you wish to share with us to help us understand your interest in the trials and tribulations of immigrants generally speaking?

Thank you Stephen for the question. First of all Apart from many others who are interested in this particular history of Polish refugees in Africa, I have no direct personal connection with this, so I rather came by accident to it. But still, I think on a deeper level, there's an interest that comes also from

my childhood and my family history. So my grandparents on my mother's side were refugees or ex-Polish at the end of the Second World War, came from the eastern part that is now Poland, but was then, before the war, eastern part of Germany. So there's... And my mother grew up as a refugee child, so to say. So I think that's something that comes from there, and a general interest in immigration and in displacement also. And a general interest

in inequality. But... Coming to this topic, I was rather coming from my interest that is all connected to this. That's an interest in colonial history, in German colonial history, and then in colonial history in East Africa. So that's the detour I took, and then I came rather by accident to this, but I come to this next.

1942 to 1950, however, nearly 20,000 Poles On page one of On the Ages of Whiteness, under the heading of introduction, you write, and I quote, White refugees are not the expected inhabitants of the African colonies. From lived in refugee camps in the British colonies of East and Central Africa. They were hosted in such diverse societies as Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, and Northern and Southern Rhodesia. and lived in over 20 camps ranging in size

from a few hundred to nearly 4,000. How did they fit into the racial hierarchies of colonial societies? Were they part of the colonizers due to that European origin or had they more in common with the colonized? Your book raises many fascinating questions. made of which you answer persuasively. Please tell us how it came about and its true background.

40,000 people sitting in Iran in camps and Yeah. Maybe I start first how I came to the topic. And this is, as I said, rather by accident. I was studying in Dar es Salaam in Tanzania and did my master thesis on the colonial history and segregation in the town. And in the course of this, I was interviewing old residents of Dar es Salaam and asking them just about how was it in the past, how was it under British colonial rule, and so

on. And then one old man just told me that there were some Polish refugees in town. I was like, okay, it's not possible. I think he makes up something. But then I started researching on it and asking other people, and I learned about this history. And it was, yeah, I thought no one has ever written

about it. this immediately drew my interest because I was just curious how this worked out because all of the things that I knew about colonial history was that there was quite a strong difference between rather powerful, rich, white people ruling people and poorer, less powerful Africans. So that's like the basic social hierarchies were there and then you have about 20,000 white poor refugees coming in. So I was just interested

in what happened then. And so I started to learn more about this history, more about Polish history, which I was not aware of

very much before. So let me maybe give a brief background because usually people don't know how they ended up there. And it's like the prehistory to my main interest, but I think it's important to know that. All this started in 1939 when Germany attacked Poland, and at the same time the Soviet Union occupied the eastern part of Poland, which was agreed

at that time in the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Then the people I look at came from the eastern part of Poland, and they were part of a larger group that was deported mainly in 1940-41, deported to the Soviet interior, to labor camps there, had to endure quite hard times there. Until 1941, the Germans attacked the Soviet Union and suddenly broke this pact. And the Soviet Union was in dire need of support against this massive attack from

the Germans. So they agreed, the Polish exile government that was sitting at that time, because they had to flee the country, they were sitting in London, They agreed a British-brokered agreement with the Soviet government, and that included the release of all Polish civilians in the Soviet Union at that time in order to form a Polish army that was supposed to fight against the Germans with the Allies.

And this army was eventually, and the people who were released, was eventually transferred to Iran, where the British army was sitting and also was quite, in heavy need of support of additional fighters there because the Germans were threatening to go across there as well. So they formed the Polish Army in Iran, but with the evacuation of the Polish soldiers, there also came civilians. And then the British didn't really know what

to do with them. They had just had these had to find a place anywhere in the world. because they knew if they want the army, they have to take care of their relatives and civilians. So that's, then they went around, tried to find any place and the only place and the only governments that could not say no to this group of refugees were in the British colonies. So there were, some went to India and the 20,000, roughly 20,000 people I look at, went to Eastern African

colonies. So they went mainly, as I said, mainly to what is today Tanzania and Uganda, and some to Kenya, some to Zambia, some to Zimbabwe, at that time it was northern and southern Tunisia, and some few to South Africa. So there they lived in some 20 refugee camps

until the end of the war, and as most of them didn't want to go return voluntarily back to Poland, because at that time after the war Poland was part of the Soviet sphere of influence, so it was communist dominated, they didn't want to go back to Poland. So in the end, most of them resettled to the UK, some in other countries, some also voluntarily went back, and in 1951, the last refugee camp was eventually closed. So this is briefly

the background history. And the main reaction of the colonial administration was They couldn't say no to the refugee influx, but they were not happy with it. It was just, okay, they had to contribute to the war effort, they had to contribute to what London was calling them, so they had to take them in, but they were all the time saying, yeah, we just take them for the time of the war, we don't want them permanently here. And they mainly did

three things with the refugees. On the one hand, they were isolating them, in refugee camps, trying to have them not mingle too much with other people, which nevertheless happened, but they tried to reduce it to the lowest amount. And the second was that they were materially supporting them, to lift them up, because they were quite poor, peasant class, rural background, where they came from, completely, yeah, they lost everything in the deportation, so they were largely

quite poor people. And to increase the difference, the social hierarchy, and to keep up this image of supposed white superiority, that white people are more richer, better established, the British supported them quite well in the refugee camps. I mean, it was not luxuries, but nevertheless, they were given pocket money, good food and medical supplies. And the third thing that after the war, they were quite clear that they don't want to keep them there and want to get rid of them

as soon as possible. So they all the time, the colonial governments pushed and said, okay, when do they go? When do they go? So we don't want them here for sure. So that's maybe briefly. in this. Thank you.

Again, under the heading of introduction, you write on page 10 the following, and I quote, this study is not only about colonial whiteness, but about forced migration as well. In the scholarly writings about migration, identity and the possibilities of renegotiating and remaking identities is a central topic. The entry into a new social setting necessitates a renegotiation of the migrant's social position. But I caution here against the use of the

term identity. Jochen, the issue of identity is one that features prominently in this book. Please define what you mean by identity, and why the quotient? positions, and this can change, and there are people who don't fit into the categories, and that's what interests me here, because this group of Polish refugees were white, but they were, on the other hand, still not the same as the British, and didn't have

the same position of the colonizer. So it was like this in between groups, and I think that there's a danger if we take identity for granted, that it's, that we, yeah, people just have to fit into one box and people don't necessarily fit into boxes. What I built on in my book is a text by Rogers Brubaker and Fred Cooper that is called Beyond Identity.

And they are the caution against the use of identity that it's quite blurry and quite a lot of things are put under this term and they argue for, and I find it quite convincing for using more precise terms, especially analytically in scholarly work. And one example is identification. So that is how people identify on the one hand, identify themselves, if they identify with others. And there's categorization that is putting people into

boxes. And that's not necessarily the same, that people who are categorized as such and such, that they really feel and identify with this category. And then there's a third thing, and that I also think is quite important, that the feeling of groupness, what they call it, that people feel connected. And that's, I think, what makes identity strong. It's not the category where you put it. I mean, all of this interacts with each other, but it's different things if you look precisely.

And this feeling of groupness and connectedness, feeling connected to others who are on the same level. Yeah. So, and I think that's the way I try to approach it, to not say it's identity, but to look precisely what is doing and seeing it as what is happening there, who is identifying whom. So who is categorizing, who is putting whom into category. And I think that's this process real terms of identification, categorization and so

on. And I think that's important to not take it for granted, but to see who is doing this actually.

Yeah. Speaking of identity, You write on page 188 the following, and I quote, one day he was sitting with some white men on the veranda having a drink before lunch. When an African woman servant passed by and entered the house, there was no reaction by the white men at all. And the conversation went on uninterrupted. Next, a Polish woman servant entered the house. This time the conversation was interrupted shortly. The men shifted uneasily in their seats, but

did not greet her. When finally a white woman who was not Polish passed the main, they stood up and exchanged greetings with her. Please talk to us about the colonial notion that domestic servants operate smoothly in situations where servants and employers are considered different from each other. And how did the arrival of poor Polish refugees challenge this notion? Yeah, thank you. Thank you for pulling out

this anecdote, which I really like. It's from anthropologist John Barnes, who wrote this, like his own observations back then. And I think this scene captures quite well this in-between position of the Polish refugees in that case. And I think that as a basic thing, that social hierarchies and exploitation and domestic work is very often built on the assumption of difference, that the people doing the domestic work are a different social

group than the people employing them. And in this anecdote, you see that there's no problem. Like this white man sitting in the veranda, they are used to African servants and they just ignore them completely. They are not social beings for them in that regard. So they don't have to greet. They don't, yeah, they invisibilize them, so to say. And the same for this white woman, which I think was British. She's clearly part of their group, so they greet her. So, yeah.

But then this Polish woman is bringing an unease, and I think that's the uneasiness of when people don't fit into the categories. And for them, in that situation, they didn't fit into the category because she was obviously white, so they're supposed to be part of her group. But on the other hand, she was a domestic servant, and I think that comes out quite clearly, the uneasiness they have with her. And I think that's what I like about this anecdote and found interesting.

And I think that, yeah, this assumption of difference is like a base for exploitation for social hierarchies to say, okay, these people are others, are different from us, so to say. And that's what makes it so powerful, the different identifications in that case.

On page 93 of the book, you write thus, and I quote, Despite the universalist rhetoric and the dedication to principles of non-discrimination, the humanitarian activities of the IRO and the early UNHCR were largely limited to European refugees and DPs. The privileged position of the Polish refugees in Africa shows that this limitation was based on racial are not regional categorization. While the international refugee regime operated in Africa in the 1940s, its assistance was limited to the

white refugees there. Jochen, please take us through the UNHCR's founding history. First of all, how does race fit into the narrative around the UNHCR's professionalism. That is, is there a problem with race today? Yeah, thank you. On your last question, sure. I mean, racism is a global problem as it was then and it still is. So it's also a problem within humanitarian organizations and UNHCR. So I think this is quite clear.

go a bit through the founding history. To simplify it a bit, UNHCR had two predecessor organizations. The first was the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. It was founded in 1943, so when the Second World War was still going on, but it was with the intention to plan for the post-war period. to take care of displaced persons and also to rebuild the countries in Europe. And this was quite limited to Europe. They also had a program in China. But look here

on the European side. UNRRA was followed in 1947, was then ended and was followed by the UN International Refugee Organization, IRO, which was like the first specialized UN organization. And then out of IRO, again, the UNHCR evolved in 1951. It gets a bit more complicated if we go into the details, but that's like roughly the line. And generally in the historiography, in history writing, it's UNRRA and IRO were very much focused

on Europe. on especially the DP operations were focused on Europe and regionally limited. So it was, yeah, just for the countries that were, had been occupied by the Nazis more or less. But as I learned from my own, in my work is that they also operated in Africa as well. Because the Polish refugees then did come under the mandate of UNRRA and the

IRO. before UNHCR was founded, they were already not in the refugee status anymore, but they did come under this mandate, and other refugees in Africa did not come under the mandate, and as well Indian refugees from India and Pakistan in 1948, the millions of people who were the partitioned refugees,

they did not come under IRO. And so I argue, based on this, I argue that it was not only the regional limit to Europe, but they were taking care of refugees who were in Africa, but they were only taking care of the European refugees who had found their way to Africa.

1951 Geneva Convention and the UNHCR core So, yeah. Setting aside your book, you wrote the following in an article that was published in the Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. on June 22nd, 2022, and I quote, historians of the international refugee regime rightly identify the European post-war era as a crucial site for the emergency of the United Nations refugee organizations, legislation,

and procedures. International organizations like UNRRA and its direct successor, the United Nations International Refugee Organization, were set up to care for and control Europe's displaced persons. They developed procedures and policies that formed the basis of the pillars of today's international refugee regime. Please share with us the little-known fact about how the British colonial experience shaped the UN refugee system that you speak

of. Furthermore, how crucial is it that we both particularize and universalize the history of refugees? Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that. Maybe I start with the second question, and I think particular rise and to universalize. I think the important thing in writing refugee history is on the one hand to say people are always fleeing from war and from misery to places that are safer. And that was during the Second World War that was from Europe to Africa.

And today it's from some African countries or countries to Europe or in the Americas from the south of the north. So I think that's That's important to keep in mind that it's, what is today maybe a place of refuge or a place people fleeing to can tomorrow be a place where people flee from because there's conflict. We also saw this with Ukrainian refugees, for example, who came to Europe.

And I think that's important to keep this in mind that this is a general condition and that's why it's important to always be open to people fleeing. Because on the next day, this could be you. And, but on the other hand, as a historian, I think it's always important to particularize, so to say, okay, to look at the specific context and to say,

okay, not every refugee is the same. So people have different abilities and different resources and are differently treated according to different forms of where they stand in terms of discrimination and so on. And I think that's, what can be seen here if you see how rather well the refugee camps were. And maybe going back to the article, you said that it's about a group of Greek refugees who then ended up in the Eastern Congo in

refugee camps there. And observers described at that time these were some of the best refugee camps in the world. So because they were rather well treated by the Belgian colonial authorities there, And if you contrast this with current day refugee camps in Greece, then you see that it's quite a difference in treatment of people. So that's the particular.

But going back to the colonial experience, the British colonial experience, as I said in this text, I'm looking at this Greek group, and they were part, like the Polish, and also some from Yugoslavia who stayed in the Middle East, people who were hosted by the British Colonial Administration in the colonies in Africa. And the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, UNRRA, they had their very first field mission in

the Middle East. And this was with refugee camps that were set up by the British Imperial Refugee, I call it Imperial Refugee Regime. in connection to the international refugee regime, what we have today. It built on this. And so these first UN refugee professionalizing humanitarians, they were working in camps and together with British colonial administrators.

And that's where I think that some of the ways of treating refugees and the infrastructure is in place so that this transferred from the colonial into the so-called international or the UN system. And I think that's an important point to look at. And that's what I do in some of my work now. So, yeah.

The title of our podcast is Genocide, How to Challenge Identity Politics in the 21st Century. Now, Emily Arnold-Fernandez, an adjunct professor with the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London School of Advanced Study, published a paper entitled, The Global Compact on Refugees, Inadequate Substitute

or Useful Complement? The paper argues that, and I quote, The substitution of the Global Compact for Refugee Convention is problematic from a human rights perspective, because the Global Compact makes very little provision for refugees' rights and interests, instead focusing on the rights and interests of states. Jochen, in the context of our podcast theme, please define for us what you understand

by the Global Compact on Refugees. And in the current age of identity politics and conservative nationalism, how should the rights and welfare of migrants be protected? Yeah, thanks so much. Yeah, I'm not really an expert in international legal things and the Global Compact on Refugees, but as far as I understand it and see it, I think it's quite important to keep up the human rights idea and also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Refugee Rights

Convention. And I think because, however insufficiently fulfilled these universal rights are, they are still And I think it's important to criticize where they are not fulfilled. But on the other hand, it still has the idea and the aspirational ideal that there should be rights. Every human being on the world should have universal basic rights. And I think that's the right to have rights. And I think that's quite an important

safeguard against abuse. And I think it's still important to keep up this ideal and to strive towards it. Although it's clear that it's not enforced and currently it looks at the other way. But I think, yeah, as the author said, it's important to keep up this rights discourse and that is not something that is given to people, but people have it already. They have their rights. And that's

important to insist on this. And people have the right to flee and they have the right to not be push back at the borders, although it happens every day, but I think that's important to keep this ideal up because that's what we should strive for. As a scholar specializing in the study of refugees, what is your biggest fear?

I think it's connected to the erosion of refugee protection that we are seeing right now and the rise of right-wing racist nationalism in many countries around the world and especially in Europe, which is the context I know best. You can see that it's quite a race to the bottom of different European governments trying to bring ever more harsh and strict

and bad policies against immigration. I've just been two weeks ago at the Polish-Belarusian border at a seminar there where they just have, the Polish government with EU support has built a huge fence through the forest, topped with barbed wire and full of military installations to keep out people who are fleeing from misery and from war. I think that's quite dehumanizing and horrible to

see this trend. People still try to get over it, but then they get hurt more, and they take ever more dangerous routes and die. And I think that's maybe the biggest fear, that there's an increasingly open dismissal of basic human rights and basic right for asylum, and that this trend is getting worse and worse. And I think that's on the one hand, it's people are suffering. That's the worst thing with it. But also it's, it has repercussions on the societies that are building

the walls. They are getting themselves more authoritarian inside. And I think that's, yeah, that's how these both are connected. And that's part of the research group I'm

currently working in, in Bielefeld. And that's, looking in the way and to to say that when when societies build walls around them that also changes the societies within the walls and that's not changing them to the better but but rather uh yeah closing them and making them more authoritarian and this and this is a cycle i think that's that's worrying the most and i think that's what we have to try to work against yeah finally johan please advise our listeners where they may find your book

on the ages of whiteness?

Thank you. Yeah, I think you can, the first address is the publisher website, that's barakhan.com. And then I think in all the larger online book ordering services, you can get them, can get the book. And if you live in a region where it's difficult to order the book, you can still always write me an email and figure out a way to get you at least a soft copy of the book. But so, yeah, I'm happy to to be in conversation about this.

Dr. Jochen Lingelbach, thank you very much for being a guest on this podcast.

Thank you so much, Stephen, for organizing this, for inviting me and for your great questions and interest in my work. giving me the platform and yeah, I think it's really important what you're doing here. Thank you. This podcast was brought to you by the Kamgassa Challenge in partnership with Democracy in Africa. Democracy in Africa is a platform dedicated to building a bridge between academics, policymakers, practitioners and citizens.

The fourth episode in the series is entitled Uganda in a Multipolar Brave New World Order, an interview with Dr. Helen Epstein, a visiting professor of human rights and global public health in the Global and International Studies program at Bard College in the USA. The podcast will go live on August 12th, 2024. If you enjoyed this podcast, please support us by subscribing to Conversations with Stephen Kamugasa through your favourite podcast app. Thank you very much for taking the time to

listen to this podcast. Until next time, goodbye.