Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T13:41:21.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Baumwollfrage: Cotton Colonialism in German East Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Thaddeus Sunseri
Thaddeus Sunseri
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In March 1907, as newly-appointed Colonial Minister Bernhard Dernburg prepared to visit German East Africa to assess the colony's potential for economic development following the recent Maji Maji rebellion, requests poured in from businessmen seeking to accompany the minister. Prominent among the select few allowed on the trip were representatives of the German textile industry interested in founding cotton plantations in the colony. Among those participants was Gustav Hertle, director of the Leipzig Cotton Spinnery, the largest cotton spinner in Germany, who had long expressed interest in colonial cotton production. Following the trip the Leipzig Spinnery went on to acquire land in German East Africa, where it founded one of the biggest cotton plantations in the colony. Other textile industrialists who accompanied Dernburg also established cotton plantations in East Africa.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 31 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Vitzthum to Dernburg, R101 1/48, Dernburg File 47, 17 March 1907, Bundesarchiv Koblenz (hereafter BAK).

2. These included Schubert, H. and Clauss, S., both Saxon industrialists. Dernburg to Kahle, 15 April 1907, Dernburg File 47, BAK; Schubert to Dernburg, 18 February 1907, Bundesarchiv Berlin (hereafter BAB) R1001/300, 2–3.Google Scholar

3. Hertle to Colonial Office, 11 October 1911, BAB/R1001/8150, 274–75; 3. Sitzung des Kolonial-Wirtschaftlichen Komitees, 20 April 1910, BAB/R1001/8150, 221.

4. Hassler to Colonial Department, 4 February 1892, BAB/R1001/8144, 35–36; Hassler Archiv #19, Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaften, Stadtarchiv Augsburg.

5. “Der Baumwollkulturkampf,” Beiträge zur Kolonialpolitik 7 (1905): 906–14; Supf to Senat der freien und Hansestadt Hamburg, Bestand 132–31, CIIIg10, 21 February 1913, Archiv der Handelskammer Hamburg, 30a; Verhandlungen des Kolonial-Wirtschaftlichen Komitees, 10 November 1904, 2. The term evokes Bismarck’s efforts to suppress the influence of the Catholic Church in Germany.

6. For summaries of the concept of social imperialism see Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, “Bismarck’s Imperialism, 1862–1890,”Google Scholar and Wolfgang, Mommsen, “Domestic Factors in German Foreign Policy before 1914,” both in Imperial Germany, ed. James, Sheehan (New York, 1976), 180–222, 223–68Google Scholar; and Geoff, Eley’s critique, “Defining Social Imperialism: Use and Abuse of an Idea,” Social History (10 1976): 265–90.Google Scholar

7. See the critique of this lacuna in Marcia, Klotz ed., “German Colonialism: Another Sonderweg?” special issue of European Studies Journal 16, no. 2 (1999): 100–12.Google Scholar

8. For example Holger, Herwig begins an essay about Wilhelmian industry and empire by dismissing empire as unworthy of discussion. “Industry, Empire and the First World War,” in Modern Germany Reconsidered 1870–1945, ed. Gordon, Martel (London, 1992), 54–73.Google Scholar

9. Reichskolonialamt (hereafter RKA), Die Baumwollfrage: Denkschrift über Produktion und Verbrauch von Baumwolle. Massnahmen gegen die Baumwollnot (Jena, 1911), 4.

10. On colonial cotton policies in Africa see Allen, Isaacman and Richard, Roberts, eds., Cotton, Colonialism, and Social History in Sub-Saharan Africa (Portsmouth, 1995).Google Scholar

11. Stenographische Berichte über die Reichstagsverhandlungen, vol. 66, 13 March 1884, 1798.

12. On cotton and Maji Maji see John, Iliffe, “The Organization of the Maji Maji Rebellion,” Journal of African History 8, no. 3 (1967): 495–512Google Scholar and idem, , A Modern History of Tanganyika (Cambridge, 1979).Google Scholar

13. Thaddeus, Sunseri, “Famine and Wild Pigs: Gender Struggles and the Outbreak of the Maji Maji War in Uzaramo (Tanzania),” Journal of African History 38 (1997): 235–57Google Scholar; Juhani, Koponen, Development for Exploitation: German Colonial Policies in Mainland Tanzania, 1884–1914 (Helsinki, 1995), 529–42.Google Scholar

14. For a discussion of German economic and labor policies in German East Africa see Thaddeus, Sunseri, Vilimani: Labor Migration and Rural Change in Early Colonial Tanzania (Portsmouth, forthcoming 2001).Google Scholar

15. As noted by Ludwig, Quesel, “Afrikanischer Baumwollbau,” in Sozialdemokratie und Kolonien, ed. Alfred, Mansfeld (Berlin, 1919), 51.Google Scholar

16. In 1900 cotton and its byproducts led the list of “tropical” crops imported into Germany with a value of 461 million marks (of which 359 million marks included cotton lint). Cotton was followed by coffee (179 million), tobacco (150 million), maize (130 million), rubber (74 million), rice (48 million), palm oil (41 million), jute (30 million), and cocoa (30 million). Denkschrift zur Frage der Ausdehnung landwirtschaftlicher Produktion in Deutsch-Ostafrika, 26 August 1901, BAB/R1001/7807, 9–10.

17. On the German textile industry before World War I see Wilhelm, Lochmüller, Zur Entwicklung der Baumwollindustrie in Deutschtand (Jena, 1906)Google Scholar; Alwin, Oppel, Die deutsche Textilindustrie (Leipzig, 1912)Google Scholar; Heinrich, Sybel, “Die Baumwollindustrie,” in Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik 105 (Leipzig, 1903): 127–55Google Scholar; Günter, Kirchhain, “Das Wachstum der deutschen Baumwollindustrie im 19. Jahrhundert,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Münster, 1973)Google Scholar; Ernst, Meyknecht, Die Krisen in der deutschen Woll- und Baumwollindustrie von 1900 bis 1914 (Gütersloh, 1928).Google Scholar

18. Benas, Levy, “Baumwolle,” Koloniale Rundschau (1910): 754Google Scholar and idem, , “Die Baumwollfrage und die deutschen Kolonien,” Koloniale Rundschau (1913): 391–414Google Scholar. See also Meyknecht, , Die Krisen, 24. An almost 100 percent jump from 1870 to 1880 included about one million spindles acquired when Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War.Google Scholar

19. RKA, Die Baumwollfrage, 165.Google Scholar

20. Levy, , “Baumwolle,” 754.Google Scholar

21. Per capita cotton consumption in Germany passed from 3 kg in 1840 to 5 kg in 1895 and 7 kg. by 1909. Kolonial-Wirtschaftliches, Komitee (hereafter KWK), Unsere Kolonialwirtschaft in ihrer Bedeutung für Industrie und Arbeiterschaft (Berlin, 1909), 49Google Scholar; Ferdinand, Fischer, Die Industrie Deutschlands und seiner Kolonien (Leipzig, 1908), 53–57.Google Scholar

22. Almost 90 percent of these manufactures went to Europe and North America, with Asia, Latin America, and Africa accounting for the remaining 10 percent. Oppel, Deutsche Textilindustrie, 93, 128; Clark, W. A. Graham, Cotton Fabrics in Middle Europe: Germany, Austria-Hungary, Switzerland (Washington, 1908), 13–14.Google Scholar

23. As argued by Hermann Paasche, a procolonial member of the German parliament in Stenographische Berichte, 288/129/4389, 8 March 1913.

24. “Die deutschen Kolonien als Absatzgebiet für Deutschlands Textilindustrie,” Leipziger Monatschrift für die gesamte Textil-Industrie 28, no. 2 (1913): 41–43 and “Deutsch-Ostafrika als Einfuhrmarkt für Textilwaren,” Leipziger Monatschrift für die gesamte Textilindustrie 29 (194): 20–22; “Deutsches Reich,” MH/11/524, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 1–6; Laird Jones, “Target Wage Workers or Targeted Consumers?: Caravan Porters, Migrant Laborers and Imported Goods, 1880–1914,” paper presented to the African Studies Association, 11–14 November 1999, Philadelphia.

25. Levy, , “Die Baumwollfrage,” 393–99Google Scholar; Clark, , Cotton Fabrics, 14Google Scholar. Saxon mills such as the Leipziger Baumwollspinnerei favored Egyptian cotton imported through Trieste, which produced a long staple better suited to their spindles. Leipziger Baumwollspinnerei AG, 146, Bericht 1906 and 1907, Staatsarchiv Leipzig.

26. Clark, , Cotton Fabrics, 19Google Scholar; KWK, Unsere Kolonialwirtschaft, 50Google Scholar; Kolonialpraxis: Handbuch für Kaufleute, Industrielle, Banken, Behörden und Kapitalisten (Berlin, 1911), 194; Oppel, , Deutsche Textilindustrie, 114.Google Scholar

27. For example Ernst, Vohsen, “Bericht über die Baumwollenkultur in den deutschen Schutzgebieten,” 1891Google Scholar, BAB/R1001/8144, 7; Association of Silesian Textile Industrialists to Berlepsch, 27 January 1891, BAB/R1001/8178, 68. The cotton famine has been discussed in Henderson, W.O., The Rise of German Industrial Power 1834–1914 (London, 1975), 144–45Google Scholar. According to Henderson, many cotton mills in Saxony, Silesia, Berlin, and the Rhineland closed or worked part time owing to the cotton famine, while Bavaria and Württemberg, with greater stores of raw cotton and less dependent on American sources, suffered less.

28. Alsatian Industrial Syndicate to CVDI, 27 October 1890, BAB/R1001/8178, 55–56; Association of Silesian Textile Industrialists to Berlepsch, 27 January 1891, BAB/R1001/8178, 68–69.

29. Jansen to Berlepsch, 5 November 1890, BAB/R1001/8178, 35–38; Deutsch-Ostafrikanische Gesellschaft to Foreign Office, 30 May 1891, BAB/R1001/8178, 106–8. The Bushiri uprising is discussed in Jonathon, Glassman, Feasts and Riot: Revelry, Rebellion, and Popular Consciousness on the Swahili Coast, 1856–1888 (Portsmouth, 1995)Google Scholar; Kieran, J. A., “Abushiri and the Germans,” in Hadith 2, ed. Bethwell, Ogot (Nairobi, 1970), 157–201.Google Scholar

30. The Alsatian industry in the 1860s was part of the French empire, thus directed its cotton growing efforts at French colonies at that time. Dollfus to CVDI, 27 October 1890, BAB/R1001/8178, 54–55.

31. Hannover Handelskammer to Berlepsch, 10 January 1891, BAB/R1001/8178, 70–72; Osnabrück Handelskammer to Berlepsch, 16 November 1891, BAB/R1001/8178, 73–75.

32. In the 1880s cotton prices hovered at around 11 cents per pound, and dropped to about 7 cents per pound by the 1890s. Karl, Supf, “Zur Baumwollfrage,” Der Tropenpflanzer 4, no. 6 (06 1900): 268.Google Scholar

33. Lochmüller, , Zur Entwicklung, 34–40.Google Scholar

34. Born, Karl Erich, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte des Deutschen Kaiserreichs (1867/71–1914) (Stuttgart, 1985), 133Google Scholar; idem, , Staat und Sozialpolitik seit Bismarcks Sturz: Ein Beitrag zur Ceschichte der innenpolitischen Entwicklung des Deutschen Reiches 1890–1914 (Wiesbaden, 1957), 91–95.Google Scholar

35. Rosenberg, Hans, “Political and Social Consequences of the Great Depression of 1873–1896 in Central Europe,” in Imperial Germany, ed. Sheehan, , 42.Google Scholar

36. Hassler to CVDI, 5 November 1890, BAB/R1001/8178, 41–46.

37. Hassler to Colonial Office, 4 February 1892, BAB/R1001/8144, 35–36.

38. Schwarzkopff and Bueck to Berlepsch, 2 February 1892, BAB/R1001/8144, 37–40.

39. The KWK was a far more influential colonial policy-making body than its much larger affiliate, the German Colonial Society (DKG). There is no general history of the Colonial Economic Committee, but see Supf, , “Die Arbeit des Kolonial-Wirtschaftlichen Komitees, 1896–1906,” Der Tropenpflanzer 10, no. 12 (1906)Google Scholar; Pierard, Richard V., “A Case Study in Economic Imperialism: The Colonial Economic Committee, 1896–1914,” Scandinavian Economic History Review 26, no. 2 (1968): 155–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Pierard, a historian of the German Colonial Society, dismisses the significance of the KWK.

40. Supf, Wilhelm, Das Ende deutscher Kolonialwirtschaft? (Berlin, 1921), 12Google Scholar, cited in Pierard, , “Case Study,” 165, n. 40Google Scholar. For a list of contributors to the KWK see Baumwollbau-Kommission des Kolonial-Wirtschaftlichen Komitees, Beitragsliste für die Jahre 1910, 1911 und 1912, Archiv der Handelskammer Hamburg.

41. Methner, Wilhelm, Unter drei Gouverneuren: 16 Jahre Dienst in deutschen Tropen (Breslau, 1938), 11–12.Google Scholar

42. Liebert to Foreign Office, 4 April 1900, BAB/R1001/8178, 209–10; Hermann memorandum, 2 September 1898, BAB/R1001/8178, 200.

43. Nussbaum, Helga, Unternehmer gegen Monopole: Über Struktur und Aktionen antimonopolistischer bürgerlicher Gruppen zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1966), 110–11.Google Scholar

44. Meyknecht, , Die Krisen, 20Google Scholar. These are average prices for Middling Upland cotton.

45. Meyknecht, , Die Krisen, 39.Google Scholar

46. Lochmüller, , Zur Entwicklung, 74–76Google Scholar; Hans-Peter, Ullmann, “Unternehmerschaft, Arbeitgeberverbände und Streikbewegung 1890–1914,” in Streik: Zur Geschichte des Arbeitskampfes in Deutschland während der Industrialisierung, ed. Tenfelde, K. and Volkmann, H. (Munich, 1981)Google Scholar; Dieter, Groh, “Intensification of Work and Industrial Conflict in Germany, 1896–1914,” Politics and Society 8 (1978): 349–97.Google Scholar

47. Verband Deutscher Baumwollgarn-Consumenten to Colonial Department, 5 November 1903, BAB/R1001/8147, 102–3.

48. Bülow to Wilhelm, 11 June 1904, BAB/R1001/8147, 166.

49. Meyknecht, , Die Krisen, 62–76.Google Scholar

50. “Aus dem Jahresbericht des Vereins Süddeutscher Baumwollindustrieller,” Textilarbeiter-Zeitung 13, no. 30, 23 September 1911, p. 301.

51. Moritz, Schanz, “Der koloniale Baumwollenbau,” Verhandlungen des Deutschen Kolonialkongresses (Berlin, 1910), 817.Google Scholar

52. Aussenministerium Nr. 6696, 2 January 1908, Sächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Dresden, 26; Handel und Gewerbe, 14, no. 25, 30 March 1907, p. 396; Konferenz zur Unterstützung der Baumwollanbaubestrebungen in den deutschen Kolonien, 6 March 1907, BAB/R1001/8148, 124.

53. Kolonial-Wirtschaftliches Komitee, Baumwollkonferenz 1912, BAB/R1001/58.

54. “Die Baumwollfrage vor dem Reichstage,” Der Textil-Arbeiter 25, no. 12, 21 March 1913, p. 89.

55. Simon, Helen, Der Anteil der Frau an der deutschen Industrie (Jena, 1910), 17–18, 81Google Scholar. In 1907 some 558, 400 women worked in the textile industry compared to 428,000 in 1895. Otto, Rose, Über Fabrikarbeit verheirateter Frauen (Stuttgart, 1910), 101–3.Google Scholar

56. Martin, Rudolf, “Die Ausschliessung der verheirateten Frauen aus der Fabrik: Eine Studie an der Textil-Industrie,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft (Tubingen, 1896), p. 118.Google Scholar

57. Canning, Kathleen, Languages of Labor and Gender: Female Factory Work in Germany, 1850–1914 (Ithaca, 1996), 3Google Scholar; des Innern, Reichsamt, Die Beschäftigung verheiratheter Frauen in Fabriken (Berlin, 1901), 25Google Scholar; Simon, , Der Anteil, 18.Google Scholar

58. Canning, , Languages of Labor and Gender, 292–93.Google Scholar

59. Karl, Gruschwitz, “Die soziale und Wirtschaftliche Lage der deutschen Textilarbeiterschaft vor, in und nach dem Krieg,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Tübingen, 1923), 109.Google Scholar

60. Verband der Textilindustriellen von Chemnitz und Umgebung to Reichskanzleiamt, I/120BB/VII 3, Nr. 2, 1 December 1899, Geheimes Staatsarchiv, Berlin-Dahlem.

61. Jahresbericht der Handelskammer Mönchen-Gladbach 1907, BAB/R1501/106460; Verhandlungen, Mitteilungen und Berichte der CDI, November 1905, BAB/R1001/106642.

62. Derek, Linton, “Between School and Marriage, Workshop and Household: Young Working Women as a Social Problem in Late Imperial Germany,” European History Quarterly 18 (1988): 387–408Google Scholar; Angelika, Willms, “Modernisierung durch Frauenarbeit? Zum Zusammenhang von wirtschaftlichem Strukturwandel und weiblicher Arbeitsmarktlage in Deutschland, 1882–1939,” in Historische Arbeitsmarktforschung: Entstehung, Entwicklung und Probleme der Vermarktung von Arbeitskmft, ed. Toni, Pierenkemper and Richard, Tilly (Göttingen, 1982), 37–77Google Scholar; Canning, , Languages of Labor and Gender, chap. 2.Google Scholar

63. “Die Lage der Textilindustrie und ihrer Arbeiter,” Die Neue Zeit 2, no. 19 (1900–1901): 273.

64. Herkner, H., “Die Ausschliessung der verheiratheten Frauen aus der Fabrik,” Frankfurter Zeitung, 16 07 1897Google Scholar; Bäumer, Gertrud, Die Frau in Volkswirtschaft und Staatsleben der Gegenwart (Stuttgart, 1914), 107–9Google Scholar; Otto, , Über Fabrikarbeit, 60.Google Scholar

65. Verband Süddeutscher Textilarbeitgeber, Jahresbericht für 1912, Wirtschaftsarchiv-Hohenheim, 9–10.

66. “Aus unserer Industrie,” Textilarbeiter-Zeitung 13, no. 29, 19 July 1913, p. 230; 15, no. 52, 27 December 1913, p. 414.

67. Gruschwitz, , “Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Lage,” 113.Google Scholar

68. “Das zweite Crimmitschau,” Der Gewerkverein 32, 11 August 1905 in Die Sozialpolitik in den letzten Friedensjahren des Kaiserreichs, ed. Hans-Joachim, Henning (Wiesbaden, 1982), 440–42.Google Scholar

69. Verband Süddeutscher Textilarbeitgeber, Jahresbericht für 1912, Wirtschaftsarchiv-Hohenheim, 8–9.

70. Verband Süddeutscher Textilarbeitgeber, Jahresbericht für 1912, Wirtschaftsarchiv-Hohenheim, 12–15.

71. Canning, , Languages of Labor and Gender, 194Google Scholar; Gruschwitz, , “Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Lage,” 115.Google Scholar

72. For example Martin, , Die Ausschliessung der verheirateten FrauenGoogle Scholar; des Innern, Reichsministerium, Die Beschäftigung verheiratheter FrauenGoogle Scholar; Otto, , Über FabrikarbeitGoogle Scholar; Gruschwitz, , “Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Lage.”Google Scholar

73. Martin, , “Die Ausschliessung,” 108, 407–9Google Scholar; Stenographische Berichte, 22. Sitzung, 21 January 1898, 563–67, 577–78; 28. Sitzung, 17 January 1901, 757–59.

74. Sonya Rose has explored these issues in Britain in “Protective Labor Legislation in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Gender, Class, and the Liberal State,” in Gender and Class in Modern Europe, ed. Laura, Frader and Sonya, Rose (Ithaca, 1996), 193–210.Google Scholar

75. Jones, Elizabeth Bright, “Gender and Agricultural Change in Saxony, 1900–1930,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 2000)Google Scholar; Hainisch, Michael, Die Landflucht: Ihr Wesen und ihre Bekämpfung im Rahmem einer Agrarreform (Jena, 1924)Google Scholar; Quante, Peter, Die Flucht aus der Landwirtschaft (Berlin-Grunewald, 1933)Google Scholar; “Ein Kapitel zur Landflucht,” Sächsische Landwirtschaftliche Zeitschrift (1913): 795–96.

76. Arbeiternoth in der Landwirtschaft 1899–1904, BAB/R1501/115485, 86–94.

77. Landwirtschaftsrat, Deutscher, Sesshaftigkeit und Abwanderung der weiblichen Jugend vom Lande (Berlin, 1905), 185Google Scholar; Vitzthum to von Hohenthal und Bergen, Aussenministerium No. 6696, 2 January 1908, Sächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Dresden, 26–27; Wermuth to Colonial Office, 16 August 1906, BAB/R1001/8148, 78–79. Likewise, in the 1890s Berlepsch, himself a Saxon estateowner, coordinated both colonial cotton programs and matters of women’s industrial employment as Minister of Trade and Industry.

78. Supf, , “Zur Baumwollfrage,” 269; Supf to Handelskammer Hamburg, 85.A.2.4, Archiv der Handelskammer Hamburg, 10 October 1903; Verhandlungen des KWKs, 10 November 1904, 2.Google Scholar

79. “Aus unserer Industrie,” Textilarbeiter-Zeitung 14, no. 51, 21 December 1912, p. 406; “Sozialdemokraten über deutsch-koloniale Baumwollzuchtsbestrebungen,” Textilarbeiter-Zeitung 13, no. 32, 12 August 1911, pp. 252–53.

80. “Die Baumwollfrage vor dem Reichstage,” Der Textil-Arbeiter 25, no. 12, 21 March 1913, p. 89.

81. Stenographische Berichte, 259/27/937, 31 January 1910; 264–65/155/5793, 23 March 1911; 288/129/4386, 8 March 1913; “Ein Sozialdemokrat zur deutsch-kolomalen Baumwollfrage,” Deutsch-Ostafrikanische Zeitung 12, no. 59, 27 July 1910, p. 1.

82. “Die Kämpfe um den Rohstoff in der Baumwollindustrie,” Der Textil-Arbeiter 22, no. 36, 9 September 1910, pp. 281–83; “Textilarbeiter und koloniale Rohstoffversorgung,” Der Textil-Arbeiter, 28 August 1914, p. 268; “Arbeitsmarkt in der Textilindustrie,” Textilarbeiter-Zeitung 15, no. 52, 27 December 1913, p. 414.

83. “Die Baumwollfrage,” Der Textil-Arbeiter 23, no. 29, 21 July 1911, p. 226.

84. “Textilarbeiter und koloniale Rohstoffversorgung,” Der Textil-Arbeiter, 26, no. 35, 28 August 1914.

85. Verein Süddeutscher Baumwoll-Industrieller, Jahresbericht für 1907, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, 3–4.

86. Benl, Georg, Die handehpolitischen Interessen der deutschen Spinnerei und Weberei von Baumwolle und Wolle seit 1862 (Berlin, 1930), 22–34.Google Scholar

87. Iliffe, John, “The Effects of the Maji Maji Rebellion of 1905–1906 on German Occupation Policy in East Africa,” in Britain and Germany in Africa: Imperial Rivalry and Colonial Rule, ed. Prosser, Gifford and Louis, William Roger (New Haven, 1967), 557–75Google Scholar; Sunseri, Thaddeus, “Labour Migration in Colonial Tanzania and the Hegemony of South African Historiography,” African Affairs 95, no. 381 (1996): 581–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

88. Supf to Colonial Office, 23 January 1906, BAB/R1001/726; Booth report, 16 January 1906, BAB/R1001/726, 130a.

89. For another well-known case study, that of the Otto plantation, see Bleifuss, Gerhard and Hergenröder, Gerhard, “Die ‘Otto-Pflanzung Kilossa’: Eine Unternehmung württembergischer Textilindustrieller in Deutsch-Ostafrika, 1907–1914,” in Kolonisation und Dekohnisation, ed. Helmut, Christmann (Schwabisch Gmünd, 1989), 244–60.Google Scholar

90. Leipziger Baumwollspinnerei, AG146, 11 January 1904, Staatsarchiv Leipzig (hereafter StAL).

91. Bericht 1907, AG146, 16 January 1908, StAL.

92. Leipziger Baumwollspinnerei, Pflanzungen, AG78, StAL.

93. Rechenberg to RKA, 25 June 1907, StAL.

94. “Wichtige Daten,” AG335, StAL; Methner to Leipzig Cotton Spinnery, 1 December 1911, BAB/R1001/8191, 27–28.

95. Bericht über die Dienstreise nach Bagamoyo und den Pflanzungen der Leipziger Baumwollspinnerei bei Sadani, 2 January 1912, BAB/R1001/8191.

96. Leipzig Cotton Spinnery to Imperial Government Dar es Salaam, 8 February 1912, BAB/R1001/8191.

97. Methner to Leipzig Cotton Spinnery, 25 March 1912, BAB/R1001/8191, 67–69.

98. Kaiserliches Gouvernement von Deutsch-Ostafrika, Die Landes-Gesetzgebung des Deutsch-Ostafrikanischen Schutzgebiets (Tanga/Dar es Salaam, 1911), 311–28.Google Scholar

99. On land policies in German East Africa see Sippel, Harald, “Aspects of Colonial Land Law in German East Africa,” in Land Law and Land Ownership in Africa, ed. Robert, Debusman and Stefan, Arnold (Bayreuth, 1996), 3–38.Google Scholar

100. 3. Sitzung des Kolonial-Wirtschaftlichen Komitees, 20 April 1910, BAB/R1001/8150, 221; Verhandlungen der Baumwollbau-Kommission des Kolonial-Wirtschaftlichen Komitees, Beihefte zum Tropenpflanzer 13, no. 3 (06 1912): 169–89.Google Scholar

101. Of the KWK’s 1913 budget of RM 330,000,150,000 was used for free cotton seed to peasants. KWK to Reichstag, Bestand 132–31, 11 January 1913, Archiv der Handelskammer Hamburg, 3; Reichskolonialamt, Der Baumwollbau in den deutschen Schutzgebieten: Seine Entwicklung seit dem Jahre 1910 (Jena, 1914), 39.

102. This disputes Iliffe’s assertion that German East Africa was well on its way to becoming a settler colony like Kenya, in “The Effects,” 572–73.Google Scholar

103. Solf’s Reisetagebuch, Nachlass Solf, NL-53, BAK, 54, 79.

104. Thaddeus, Sunseri, “Dispersing the Fields: Railway Labor and Rural Change in Early Colonial Tanzania,” Canadian Journal of African Studies 32, no. 3 (1998): 558–83.Google Scholar

105. Braun, K., “Der Reis in Deutsch-Ostafrika,” Berichte über Land- und Forstwirtschaft 3, no. 4 (1908): 169.Google Scholar

106. On gaps in gender analysis in German historiography see Eley, Geoff, “Introduction 1: Is There a History of the Kaiserreich?”Google Scholar and Quataert, Jean, “Introduction 2: Writing the History of Women and Gender in Imperial Germany,” in Society, Culture, and the State in Germany, 1870–1930, ed. Geoff, Eley (Ann Arbor, 1996), 1–66.Google Scholar

107. Bley, Helmut, Namibia under German Rule (Münster, 1998)Google Scholar; Gewald, Jan-Bart, Herero Heroes: A Socio-Political History of the Herero of Namibia 1890–1923 (Oxford, 1999).Google Scholar

108. Of some 5, 400 settlers (including Germans, Afrikaaners, British, Italians and Greeks) only 882 were farmers or planters in 1913. Tetzlaff, Rainer, Koloniale Entwicklung und Ausbeutung: Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Deutsch-Ostafrikas, 1890–1914 (Berlin, 1970), 106.Google Scholar