AfD fakes against post-colonialism: white guilt whitewashing

The German far-right AfD politician Matthias Helferich has launched a campaign challenging postcolonial scholarship, accusing it of promoting a “white guilt” narrative. The initiative, which includes a website and downloadable brochure, aims to discredit postcolonial research by presenting it as a left-wing cultural battle rooted in mythmaking. According to a study by Berit Kö, a researcher with the project “History instead of Myths” at the University of Jena, Helferich’s efforts rely heavily on misinformation and misrepresentation. Helferich, a member of the Bundestag since 2021 and part of the AfD parliamentary group since 2025, has long been active online and on social media. His approach involves using fabricated content, what Kö refers to as “Fakes”, to reshape historical narratives. The campaign, titled “Post-Kolonialismus,” features a user-friendly design and includes a brochure that claims to expose myths surrounding Germany’s colonial past. However, the material contains inaccuracies and misleading claims, according to Kö. One example cited by Kö is the misattribution of a quote attributed to “Afrikaner activist” Ambalavaner Sivanandan. While the quote is used to suggest a critique of European colonialism, Sivanandan actually hailed from Sri Lanka and was associated with the Institute of Race Relations in London. Kö points out that this error exemplifies how the campaign attempts to simplify complex historical issues through racialized generalizations. A photo accompanying the quote shows a screaming Black woman raising her hand, generated by artificial intelligence, reinforcing the campaign’s divisive tone. Helferich’s campaign seeks to challenge the idea that Germany bears responsibility for its colonial history. He argues against the concept of a “schuldstolz”, a term he describes as a perverse pride in one’s guilt. Kö notes that this rhetoric aligns with broader AfD strategies to downplay historical accountability. She highlights how Helferich’s work echoes similar arguments made by other far-right figures, such as Martin Sellner, who previously claimed that postcolonial critiques were attacks on the “Auschwitz myth.” Another key claim in the brochure is that the transatlantic slave trade did not begin until later, which Kö calls a straw man argument. She explains that standard historical texts do not dispute this assertion. Similarly, Helferich disputes the notion that Europe maintained slavery in Africa, arguing instead that colonial powers sought to establish free trade zones. Kö counters that the Berlin Conference of 1884–85, often cited as a turning point in African colonization, primarily focused on dividing territories rather than abolishing slavery. Helferich also challenges the classification of the Herero uprising as genocide, suggesting that the victims were responsible for their fate. Kö refutes this by pointing out that the Hereros were forced into a deadly dilemma: choosing between German rifles and the desert. She emphasizes that the conflict would not have existed without colonial rule, making the accusation of collective guilt unfounded. The campaign appears to be part of a larger effort by the AfD to reshape public discourse around Germany’s colonial legacy. By framing postcolonial scholarship as a tool of political bias, Helferich and his allies aim to undermine academic consensus and promote alternative narratives. This strategy reflects a broader trend among right-wing groups to reject historical accountability and emphasize national exceptionalism. As the debate over Germany’s colonial past continues, scholars and activists remain concerned about the spread of misinformation. With Helferich’s campaign gaining traction online, there is growing pressure to ensure that discussions about colonial history are grounded in factual accuracy. The controversy underscores the ongoing struggle between historical truth and ideological agendas in contemporary politics.