The people of Antium were primarily Volsci, an ancient tribe that made Antium their capital city. The Romans fought the Volsci for control of the city, and Antium was a key location in the Roman wars with the Volsci. 

The Herero and Nama genocide or Namibian genocide, formerly known also as the Herero and Namaqua genocide, was a campaign of ethnic extermination and collective punishment which was waged against the Herero (Ovaherero) and the Nama in German South West Africa (now Namibia) by the German Empire. It was the first genocide to begin in the 20th century, occurring between 1904 and 1908. In January 1904, the Herero people, who were led by Samuel Maharero, and the Nama people, who were led by Captain Hendrik Witbooi, rebelled against German colonial rule. On 12 January 1904, they killed more than 100 German settlers in the area of Okahandja.

In August 1904, German General Lothar von Trotha defeated the Ovaherero in the Battle of Waterberg and drove them into the desert of Omaheke, where most of them died of dehydration. In October, the Nama people also rebelled against the Germans, only to suffer a similar fate. Between 24,000 and 100,000 Hereros and 10,000 Nama were killed in the genocide. The first phase of the genocide was characterized by widespread death from starvation and dehydration, due to the prevention of the Herero from leaving the Namib desert by German forces. Once defeated, thousands of Hereros and Namas were imprisoned in concentration camps, where the majority died of diseases, abuse, and exhaustion.

In 1985, the United Nations' Whitaker Report classified the aftermath as an attempt to exterminate the Herero and Nama peoples of South West Africa, and therefore one of the earliest attempts at genocide in the 20th century. In 2004, the German government recognised the events in what a German minister qualified as an "apology" but ruled out financial compensation for the victims' descendants.

 In July 2015, the German government and the speaker of the Bundestag officially called the events a "genocide"; however, it refused to consider reparations at that time. Despite this, the last batch of skulls and other remains of slaughtered tribesmen which were taken to Germany to promote racial superiority were taken back to Namibia in 2018, with Petra Bosse-Huber [de], a German Protestant bishop, describing the event as "the first genocide of the 20th century".

In May 2021, the German government issued an official statement in which it said that Germany

"apologizes and bows before the descendants of the victims. Today, more than 100 years later, Germany asks for forgiveness for the sins of their forefathers. It is not possible to undo what has been done. But the suffering, inhumanity and pain inflicted on the tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children by Germany during the war in what is today Namibia must not be forgotten. It must serve as a warning against racism and genocide."

The same year, the German government agreed to pay €1.1 billion over 30 years to fund projects in communities that were impacted by the genocide.

The original inhabitants of what is now Namibia were the San and the Khoekhoe.

Herero, who speak a Bantu language, were originally a group of cattle herders who migrated into what is now Namibia during the mid-18th century. The Herero seized vast swathes of the arable upper plateaus which were ideal for cattle grazing. Agricultural duties, which were minimal, were assigned to enslaved Khoisan and Bushmen. Over the rest of the 18th century, the Herero slowly drove the Khoisan into the dry, rugged hills to the south and east.

The Hereros were a pastoral people whose entire way of life centred on their cattle. The Herero language, while limited in its vocabulary for most areas, contains more than a thousand words for the colours and markings of cattle. The Hereros were content to live in peace as long as their cattle were safe and well-pastured, but became formidable warriors when their cattle were threatened.

According to Robert Gaudi, "The newcomers, much taller and more fiercely warlike than the indigenous Khoisan people, were possessed of the fierceness that comes from basing one's way of life on a single source: everything they valued, all wealth and personal happiness, had to do with cattle. Regarding the care and protection of their herds, the Herero showed themselves utterly merciless, and far more 'savage' than the Khoisan had ever been. Because of their dominant ways and elegant bearing, the few Europeans who encountered Herero tribesmen in the early days regarded them as the region's 'natural aristocrats.'"

By the time of the Scramble for Africa, the area which was occupied by the Herero was known as Damaraland. The Nama were pastorals and traders and lived to the south of the Herero.

In 1883, Adolf Lüderitz, a German merchant, purchased a stretch of coast near Lüderitz Bay (Angra Pequena) from the reigning chief. The terms of the purchase were fraudulent, but the German government nonetheless established a protectorate over it. At that time, it was the only overseas German territory deemed suitable for European settlement.

Chief of the neighbouring Herero, Maharero rose to power by uniting all the Herero.  61  Faced with repeated attacks by the Khowesin, a clan of the Khoekhoe under Hendrik Witbooi, he signed a protection treaty on 21 October 1885 with Imperial Germany's colonial governor Heinrich Ernst Göring (father of Hermann Göring) but did not cede the land of the Herero. This treaty was renounced in 1888 due to lack of German support against Witbooi but it was reinstated in 1890.

The Herero leaders repeatedly complained about violation of this treaty, as Herero women and girls were raped by Germans, a crime that the German judges and prosecutors were reluctant to punish.

In 1890 Maharero's son, Samuel, signed a great deal of land over to the Germans in return for helping him to ascend to the Ovaherero throne, and to subsequently be established as paramount chief.  29  German involvement in ethnic fighting ended in tenuous peace in 1894. 48  In that year, Theodor Leutwein became governor of the territory, which underwent a period of rapid development, while the German government sent the Schutztruppe (imperial colonial troops) to pacify the region

President Ronald Reagan was Racist. 

The only thing shocking about the news that Reagan, the Republicans’ beloved secular god, made a racist comment is that there are people who are somehow surprised by this revelation. In the October 1971 audio clip, Reagan, then California’s governor, calls President Nixon to denounce a United Nations vote recognizing the People’s Republic of China, one celebrated by members of the Tanzanian delegation.

“Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did . . . to see those, those monkeys from those African countries,” Reagan said. “Damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes.”

Nixon, who taped the conversation, responded with a hearty laugh. (Always with the taping, that Tricky Dick.)

I hope I’m not breaking any news here when I say Nixon, too, was a racist.

“This October 1971 exchange between current and future presidents is a reminder that other presidents have subscribed to the racist belief that Africans or African Americans are somehow inferior,” Naftali, now a New York University history professor, wrote in an essay for The Atlantic. “The most novel aspect of President Donald Trump’s racist gibes isn’t that he said them, but that he said them in public.”

In a statement, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation said, “If he said that 50 years ago, he shouldn’t have. And he would be the first person to apologize.”

There’s no “if.” That’s clearly Reagan’s voice. And Reagan’s list of apologies to black people would be far longer than contrition over a recorded slur. He bent one woman’s story, dubbing her a “welfare queen,” into a vile stereotype of black women hustling taxpayer dollars to support lavish lifestyles. Reagan then used it to attack housing benefits, aid to children in poverty, and food stamp programs. His disdain for the gay community made him ignore the ravages of AIDS, which also disproportionately affected straight black women and Haitians, for most of his presidency. Many were killed by presidential neglect, as well as the virus.

Black worshippers are now embraced as equals among Jehovah's Witnesses, but it hasn't always been this way.

Most Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Watch Tower Society is completely beyond reproach when it comes to issues surrounding racism and racial equality. When attending a meeting, convention, or assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses, one is instantly impressed at the intermingling and harmony between people of all ethnic backgrounds. Watchtower publications speak of all races being equal before a God who is “not partial.” Generally speaking, this philosophy filters down as a positive influence on the way members of different races treat one another within our organization. We even have a black brother, Samuel Herd, now sitting on the Governing Body!

However, things haven’t always been this way. In fact, the road to racial harmony has been just as “bumpy” for our organization as it has for many others. If you were to read some early Watchtower publications, you would doubtless be shocked and appalled by some of the offensive rhetoric employed by the writers of the Society’s literature back then. Indeed, if such literature was reprinted or otherwise circulated today as representing the Society’s current attitudes towards race, the organization would likely end up facing yet more serious legal entanglements, not to mention an outcry from their many non-white members spread across the globe.

Sadly, there are numerous examples of racial bigotry in the Society’s early literature, and few non-white races escape unscathed. I will attempt to catalogue some of the more offensive quotes in this article. For brevity, I will present a “timeline” of racist expressions as published by the Society, followed by a more thorough analysis of each quoted text in date order.

The above excerpt is taken from Zion’s Watch Tower, April 15th 1900, page 122.

Russell’s magazine freely acknowledged that its discriminatory advertisement for volunteers was founded on a stereotype of blacks having “less education than whites.” Then it expressed his outrageous opinion that “reading matter distributed to a colored congregation would more than half of it be utterly wasted.” It seems difficult to fathom how Russell, who blushed at suggestions that he was God’s “Faithful and Wise Servant,” could harbor and promulgate such a deplorable and misconceived attitude towards black men and women. This bizarre outlook presented itself in his other writings, most notably when he touched on his strange obsession with “the Ethiopian’s skin.”

In the above article entitled “Can Restitution Change The Ethiopian’s Skin?” Russell leaps upon an incident whereby a black preacher claimed to have developed white skin after having prayed for it. Reverend Draper, who apparently told others that “if he could only be white like his employer, he would be happy,” started praying thirty years prior to the article and experienced a transformation over the period leading up to its publication. Once his skin was completely white, he returned to his former church, and had a hard time convincing the members of his identity. We now know that this “miraculous” transformation was the result of Vitiligo, a medical condition resulting in depigmentation of areas of skin. It isn’t that rare, and I’ve met people who have this condition. Perhaps you have too.

However, Russell was apparently so obsessed by the idea of black people becoming white that he would leap on any related report as evidence that this might happen on a grander scale in the future. The February 15, 1904 Watchtower reported a similar incident involving a nine-year-old boy named Julius Jackson under the heading “Can The Ethiopian Change His Skin?” which I reproduce below:

The above excerpt is taken from

Zion’s Watch Tower, February 15th 1904, pages 52-53.

Again, it’s difficult to fathom why Russell was so preoccupied with the concept of blacks becoming whites. What was so wrong for him about their original color? Why would the color of a person’s skin make any difference to a God who is “not partial”? I suppose only Russell knew that answer.

A telling insight into Russell’s attitudes towards race came in another Watchtower article in 1902. That article, entitled “The Negro Not A Beast,” attempted to banish the extremely offensive idea being promulgated in a book of the period that black men and women were somehow on a par with animals. Despite its tacit opposition to this outrageous concept, the Watchtower’s riposte was tainted by more than a hint of racist ideology.

The above excerpt is taken from Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15th 1902, pages 215-216.

To paint Africa’s “various tribes or nations of negroes” as being “degraded” is a highly offensive racial slur by anyone’s standards. By comparison, it claims that the white race “exhibits some qualities of superiority over any other,” and enjoys “preeminence in the world.” Further down, that same article states that the Caucasian has “greater intelligence and aptitude” as a result of a “commingling of blood” under “divine control.” The article, which ironically sets out to counter racist arguments, ends up making more than a few of its own. We are left with an ideology that wouldn’t look out-of-place in a Nazi propaganda leaflet. Black people aren’t the only ones humiliated by this article; it also suggests that Indians and Chinese have some catching up to do genetically before they are to “equally brighten their intellects.”

At this point, it’s worth reminding ourselves that Charles Taze Russell didn’t necessarily pen these articles himself. Zion’s Watch Tower had at least five regular contributors. However, Russell was the chief editor and would have checked each article personally before approving it for print. Even if he hadn’t written a certain article himself, he would have signed off on it before publication in a magazine for which he was legally accountable. Therefore, readers may consider any racially offensive article published under his editorship as representing his views. I’m sure he would have scrapped any article without the slightest hesitation if it conflicted with his own opinions.

It wasn’t long before Russell’s dim view of the “colored brethren” generated yet more offense and outrage among his black readership. In January 1914, during a screening of the Photodrama of Creation at The Temple, West 63rd Street, a number of negro audience members were segregated from their white counterparts and made to sit separately on the balcony of the auditorium. This caused understandable outrage, and several wrote angry letters – furious that they had suffered such discrimination at the hands of their “brothers.” The Society printed a response under the heading “The Color Line Found Necessary” in the April 1 Watchtower, reproduced below:2

The above excerpt is taken from Zion’s Watch Tower, April 1st 1914, pages 105-106.