You guys this is one single shoe from an American Girl doll and I sold it. Hey, fellow buddies. Thanks for watching Amazing right? All right, let's get started Hey, fellow buddies. Thanks for watching.  I love my job. All right This first item is an urtle my first Luke loader die cast rolling figure It's a push toy and a lot of you watching you might have kids You may be able to source in your house some of the things that I sell I actually got this at the Goodwill bins and Cost of goods was less than a dollar and I sold this for seven dollars and eighty cents plus shipping But a lot of the items that I pick up at the bins are toys and you may have them lurking in your home The next item is this Chuck E cheese advertising ball any time I see something Chuck E cheese I pick it up. It is collectible. People will buy it. I got this out of a thrift store mystery toy box And cost of goods was probably a dollar less. I took a best offer of twenty five dollars plus shipping on this The next item I picked up at a garage sale for 50 cents. I have sold this before it's some game Eleminous, I don't even know what it is, but it was 50 cents. I knew it was a major bread and butter But again, I had already sold it once so I figured I might as well pick it up and sell it again And that's what I did 50 cents and two seven dollars and 80 cents plus shipping the next item. Would you believe it? You've heard of people selling adult shoes like a single shoe you guys this is one single shoe from an American girl doll and I sold it for seven dollars and 80 cents plus shipping so can it be done? It can be done. You can sell single doll shoes. Oh my goodness and it sold super fast I sold it for seven dollars and 80 cents plus shipping The next item also came from the Goodwill Benz. This is a vintage Z toys Ferrari. It's a car from Hong Kong It's incomplete condition wasn't that great But I had to pick it up because it was vintage and there was no way I was letting that go to the landfill I sold this for eleven dollars plus shipping the next item also came from the Goodwill Benz And this is a Daniel Tiger neighborhood cell phone and I sold this for a best offer of fourteen dollars plus shipping I also included a video in my description to show how that works And that video is actually performing pretty well over on my reseller testing Bolo products channel This next item are the vintage Fisher price precious places baby nursery cottage miscellaneous parts lot of four I did a video over on my sourcing with Bolo buddies YouTube channel. It's linked down below of The precious places Lot that I got I got it It came in a box. I thought it was all a complete set. It was not so I parted it out I've only sold two or three items out of it so far But I think I paid a dollar for the entire box and it is definitely going to be turned into a big money Bolo by the time I'm done selling everything so go over and check out that video about how I parted this out Here it is. This is what it looks like. It says maximize profits how to part out precious places play set Okay, and again, there was more than just the one play set This is my other channel used candle cells for a hundred and twenty five So there are different types of videos. I do a lot of my unboxings over there But definitely go check it out. This is my sourcing with Bolo buddies YouTube channel All right, let's look at this right here. This also came from the Goodwill Benz. I pay a dollar eighty nine a pound I have tons of videos of me actually digging through the bends and sourcing if you want to see how I do it I do a voiceover. I tell you what I pick up and why I also pop up screenshots of how I list the items So if this looks familiar to you It was probably already in one of my Goodwill Benz videos as a listing that I listed and now it sold I Sold this bunny for nine dollars and thirty cents plus shipping. It is the goodnight moon plush bunny in pajamas It is a stuffed animal This also came from the Goodwill Benz. I thought it was super cute.  Here's the neck area. Let me see Yeah, it looks like that and I sold this for fifteen dollars. The buyer was all in for twenty two eighty seven With tax and shipping this item came from a garage sale. It is Hoppy Vander hair. It's a plush I usually pick up this brand. It usually is bread and butter, but hey, you never know, right? I thought the little skeleton outfit was cute and it actually sold higher than I expected it sold for thirty one dollars plus shipping This right here came out of a Mystery box that a viewer sent me This came from Lisa and I have an unboxing video on my channel I don't know which video is gonna post first, but this one actually had the twiggy tag in it So it had condition issues, but I was like, you know what it's got that tag. It's from 1967 I'm gonna put this up for auction. I sold this for fourteen dollars and ninety nine cents plus shipping with the condition issues This next item. These are Lang recipe album refill pages. I got these. I don't know where I got these I can't remember so Um, I don't know but I had five of them total but for this one somebody bought three of them and they paid thirty one sixty two They were all in for thirty five sixty eight any time I can find new old stock like recipes or like these real refill pages for books I pick them up. They sell people are looking for them This one right here is a folk monist frog puppet. It's got a movable mouth and four legs plush It is super super cute Um, I got this at a garage sale for a dollar and I sold this for thirteen dollars and sixty four cents plus ship Shipping I always always always pick up folk monist. Love it This one is a wildlife artist realistic sea turtle and I recently did a video on Realistic plush to be on the lookout for and I got this at the Goodwill bins and I sold it for twelve dollars and forty cents plus shipping These are Disney's Monsters ink toy figures, there's seven of them here This did take a little while to sell a lot of times I will put cake toppers in my title Usually when they have the base on them, but even if they don't people can use them as cake toppers It's just a good keyword that parents will search when they're making cakes for their kids And then the kids can take it off the cake and you know play with them I guess But I got these at a garage sale for a buck and I sold these for a best offer of eleven dollars plus shipping This one came from the Goodwill bins. I'm not sure if this was a great buy or not I knew that it functioned and I wanted to do a video on my channel Reseller testing Bolo products, so I went ahead and picked this up. It was heavy So this might have cost me around seven bucks maybe eight a dollar eighty nine a pound I mean it was heavy But if you see these they they do okay. I sold this for thirty one dollars plus shipping It did take a little while to sell, but this thing is super cool It like talks and dances and it's actually pretty incredible You should definitely go check out that video over on my reseller testing Bolo products I'll link it down below the the channel But some of these toys are just they're so fun This one is a vintage Halloween honeycomb ghost and orange ball I pick up anything honeycomb honeycomb is this right here See how this ball opens up so it folds open into a honeycomb Shape I guess is what I would call it got this out of a thrift store mystery box and sold it for a best offer of ten dollars plus shipping These here are Hatchimals they came from a garage, so I paid a dollar each for these I put these together and I called them twins and I think that helped me sell this item These are the P cat and I sold these for a best offer of twenty dollars plus shipping Most of the time I believe these are surprise toys where you open an egg and you're not sure what you're gonna get So a lot of times these people want to buy these new because they want that surprise element their Excuse me. They are a harder to sell item I think but I don't know let me know what your experience is in the in the comments I don't pick these up very often, but I figured there were two of them and I could call them twins and That might help me in selling them and I think it did The next item is this vintage Kurt Adler ornament. It's new old stock. I got this at a garage sale for ten cents Sold it for sixteen plus shipping This is a excuse me Transformers rescue bots flatbed truck. I always pick up these transformer rescue bots I do a little video over on my reseller testing products channel link it in the description Not needed most people know how to do these. These are really really easy, but Growing that channel over there. So People search how toys work. So that's what I do. I put them over there 50 cents off of Facebook Marketplace sold it for twelve dollars and forty cents plus shipping This here I got at a garage sale for five bucks. It's Mickey's Christmas Carol figures Mickey mini Disney store special edition I took a best offer. Nope. I'm sorry. I sold this for my sale price of thirty one dollars plus shipping This is another one of the window August switch cover plates I did a whole video on these these have been selling like hotcakes Definitely if you see this Window August brand look it up. I sold this For twenty eight dollars plus shipping and I got it at a garage sale for about a dollar Creative memory scrapbooking items in general. Oh my goodness. I have done so well with this brand Especially the refill pages the punches I'm doing okay with them, but the refill pages. Oh my goodness if you find them pick them up They sell great. I ended up selling this for nine dollars and thirty cents plus shipping. It's the star shape It's got two sizes This came out of that creative memories lot that I got at that garage sale. I have footage of that It was oh my goodness just an amazing buy I didn't know how good it was until I started comping the stuff out and just how quickly the creative memories items Were selling for me.  I think that's really cute. I hate breakables, but I think I can sell this It's a vintage vanity set trinket tray floral probably could have had better keywords in the title But didn't know anything about it just wanted to take a chance and it sold it took a long time to sell But again, I think if I would have had better keywords, it would have done better So for those of you that sell items like this, go ahead and in the comments Give me some keywords that you would have put in the title for this and that'll help everybody learn I sold this for twenty dollars and the buyer paid shipping These little hummingbirds they are pierced earrings I got these at a church sale for fifty cents and I sold these for twenty six dollars plus shipping and they are Fantastic This is a vintage Halloween die-cut decorations. These were not marked. They actually had I think a lot of issues I don't know if these were used in a classroom, but you can see the marker on them They weren't in great shape at all. I sold these for seventeen dollars plus shipping. They came out of a thrift store mystery box This is a vintage candle Christmas tree. It's gold. It's green with gold glitter I got this from a thrift store for one dollar and I sold it for a best offer of ten dollars plus shipping These right here are these vintage ceramic Halloween pump it pumpkin anthro Pomorphic, I always say that wrong anthropomorphic. I don't know it means they have a face But they're happy and sad somebody wanted me to part these out And I'm like no because if I part it out then I'm gonna have to like create a new listing and I just I Feel like when I part things out for people sometimes they don't buy it and it just creates more work for me So let me know in the comments if somebody asked you to part something out Do you do it or do you say no in this case? I said no I ended up selling this for thirty dollars plus shipping and I got it at a thrift store for one dollar The next item came from that estate clean out. I got a whole bunch of crafting items From that sale and when I say crafting items, it was like cross stitch and lots of stuff like that I decided to put all of these together in a lot and put them up for auction. They did sell for my auction start price I usually start my auctions at the minimum I want to get for the item if it does not sell then I re-listed at a buy it now with best offer That's just my method. I don't start my auctions at 99 cents unless maybe over on whatnot I might start something at a dollar sometimes so Follow me over on what not Bolo buddies. There's a link down below You can get $15 to shop if you join with my link. It's a referral link So you get that bonus $15 to shop. You don't have to spend it in my on my show But yeah, check me out over there. If you guys are already on what not let me know how you're doing Let me know what your link is or your Handle or whatever you call it on what not put it down in the comments so everybody can follow you All right, so sold this for 2499 plus shipping All right, you guys thank you so much for being here. Thank you for watching I appreciate every single one of you Appreciate you taking time out of your day to watch and learn Let me know in the comments if you've been watching my channel for a while I've been kind of trying to switch things up But also trying to keep the old but adding some new let me know in the comments What is your favorite type of video that I do I would love to hear from you guys? Again, if you're new I'd love for you to subscribe if you've been here a while Thanks for coming back and make sure you're still subscribed and thanks for watching


From VOA Learning English, this is the economics report in special English. Greek leaders have been holding talks with financial experts from the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank. All sides are working on ways to bring Greece's huge debt under control. That debt threatens to hurt Europe and the world economy. In 2011, the Greek government decided to close 50 state agencies to save money. The country's foreign creditors have demanded these types of cost-cutting measures, but this process has been a struggle. One example is Greece's attempt to close the Organization for Public Property Management, or ODDY. ODDY ran centers around the country that sold off different kinds of goods from furniture to cars. At a center in Athens, cars of almost every model can be found. They may have been seized from drug dealers or taken from people who could not pay their bills. And there are lots of other goods, furniture, large appliances, buses, motorcycles, even gambling machines. ODDY used to sell them all. Now, that part of the agency has been closed, and the weather is ruining many of these goods. Officially, Greece closed ODDY, but employees and government officials say they really restructured it. They say ODDY has been renamed DDDY. It is no longer an organization, but a directorate, and it is now an office of the Greek Finance Ministry. Critics of the change say the new agency is no longer effective. Jobs have been cut sharply, and many costs have moved from pay to pensions. Critics of the cuts say they may not be saving Greece money after all. But the agency says that, in time, they will cut costs. For VOA Learning English, I'm Laurel Bowman.


Good afternoon, good evening, and good morning. I think just the panelists ourselves cover all of those time zones. And it's been really great to be able to talk to all of you. Stephen and I are going to be tag teaming this. I'm going to be taking the first section, and he's going to take the second one. But I think you'll find that we're going to collaborate during each content of the slides as we go. And I do welcome you to try and put questions in. If there are questions that we see, we'll address them while we're actually presenting. And we will also look at questions at the end of the presentation. Stephen, did you want to say hi to yourself, just to do an audio check, something else? Sure. And yes, I'm the good morning part of the session here. So good day, Alec. And let's get on and share our learnings from the Business Capability Guide. Absolutely.  And what we want you to get out of this presentation is exactly what do we mean by the term business capability. I think there's a reasonable amount of consistency, but there's a lot of confusion at times as well. And the intent of this guide and what I hope you get out of this presentation is a better level of precision on what we mean by business capabilities. And hopefully, as you see the examples that we're looking in, that you can see why business capabilities are such an essential part of enterprise and business architecture. And then we're going to go through a few examples of how we develop and use them in practice. And as Sonia mentioned, there's only so much we're covering in the narrow scope of actually business capabilities and creating business capability models. In future guides that we're planning already, we're going to go into specific more detail about how we would use business capabilities within our business architecture practice. I think it's really important to remember here that above all else the identification and use of business capabilities is a means to an end. And that end is to help business leaders and planners get a better understanding or a more collective and coherent understanding across the business of what the business actually does and what it needs to do. And therefore provide them with the visibility and the insight required to help people make better business decisions. Absolutely. Defining a business capability is an art of abstraction. We're trying to create some very high level enduring constructs so that are not going to change for very long. And so we're going to go through a mechanism and process here to try and help you do that by starting by defining an actual business capability. You can see the definition here. We're starting with a definition for business capability that's been around for almost a decade now or over a decade now. And the reason mostly for that is because it's been established for a long time and many people including Business Architecture Guild and many other people are using this as the definition. And so it's important to note that the business capability is what the business does. It's not how it does it. It's not why we're doing it or it's not where in the organization that that capability is realized. I think where we find, for example, one of the biggest things is what about business function and within the open group, the business function is stated as the capability that is closely aligned to a particular business organization. And so that is a specific mapping of a business capability to an organization when it's used in a business function. And we're also finding a lot. Yep, sorry. I was thinking that this distinction between the what versus the how is really important. And understanding that distinction will help us avoid getting caught in the trap of discussing down in the depth detail about current processes and operations. Really ensuring that architects can maintain a view of the business at a sufficiently abstract level to help clearly identify where gaps are occurring, where overlaps and redundancies exist today. And where to prioritize investments, change efforts to achieve tomorrow's vision. So we really wanted to stress the distinctions here between what it is, what it isn't. Readers and users of TOGF may be wondering about the need for this new concept of business capabilities in the first place because it's not explicitly included as part of the current meta model within TOGF. But as Alex stated, rather there is this concept of function, which in itself describes a unit of business capability. But as mentioned earlier, the practical application of business and enterprise architecture is where things start to get a little bit confusing since function is more commonly described in an organization or a business unit setting, being a process or an operation that the organization performs on a regular basis as part of its day-to-day activities. So that's quite different from business capability, as we'll see as we go forward in the webinar, which just deliberately separates itself from the organizational structure and the process charts in order not to constrain thinking about what could be or what needs to be. So when we go to, I'm hoping the description itself will help you better understand it, right? So first off, this always seems to be the more interesting aspect of creating your business capabilities is actually coming up with a name that everybody can agree on. Most of the time you want them to be as clear as possible, it shouldn't require necessarily a definition for you to be able to understand what the business capability is. But we do recommend that you have a description or a definition depending on how precise you want to be. But the real key here is to make sure that it's, that it's very easy to understand and it's not, we shouldn't be writing a novel here. And so our example here, I realize our slide doesn't actually have, is around recruitment management, is the name. And I think for most of us, we've probably been on one side or both sides of the recruiting process. And we've created a definition here, a description here says that recruitment management is the ability to solicit, qualify, and provide support for hiring new employees into the organization, right? So that's the kind of level of detail that we want to get to when we're describing a capability or in defining a capability. And there's some usually a noun-verb combination there. But we're looking because it's what we do and how we do it, it should be more of a noun aspect of it than an action-oriented word. And Stephen, you've probably got a few more words of guidance on that topic. Yeah, I think that when you start capability mapping, you're going to be really challenged to find terms that are clear and concise enough that those terms can resonate with and be easily understood by the business stakeholders and which aren't ambiguous enough that they might mean one thing to one person and something else in a completely different part of the company. So there will be lots of tooling and throwing and iteration to go through as you just develop the first set of names and descriptions. So the important thing is really to be patient with this and use it as an opportunity to start building a dialogue with the decision-makers who will ultimately need to own the capability model. Absolutely. And the guidance that's been put in the chat window and the guidance that we also put in the guide itself is if you should be able to start with the definition or the rule where the organization has the ability to do X, right? So capability components is another aspect that we've added to the capability guide where we're suggesting is capability is usually a combination of people or roles, processes, some information and tools that together are able to deliver the what of a particular capability, right? And this is done to also help make sure that we don't fall into the trap of possibly identifying what would be a capability component as an actual capability, right? So if we look at the slides here, and I know this might be difficult to see, but in our recruitment management we have some roles of people who would have some activities to do in this, right? We've got the recruiter in this situation, a manager who's trying to hire somebody, and a candidate or candidates themselves. And you can see that there's going to be some processes that are within that capability that are executed and some actual information that is usually contained within the capability itself. And some tools in this situation, we've listed largely only information technology applications as tools, but tools can be almost anything. You want them to be whether that's an actual building, whether that's any other tool that you need to be able to do it. But all of these things, even though you may have a role that is used in another capability, we are thinking of this in the context of an abstracted container called a capability. So all these things should be within the scope of the recruitment management capability. So in actual practice, I find that it's less important that you spend a lot of time trying to get a complete, fully documented table, as we've shown in the example here. It's less important trying to get this table 100% accurate and 100% complete. Rather, it's the process of going through this exercise that's most valuable because it'll help you refine the name and the definition of the capability itself, check whether it's actually needed at all at the same level, perhaps, as other capabilities you've identified, or if it needs to be further decomposed into more detailed descriptions or broken up into child capabilities. So it's more the process that you go through in defining each of these components rather than coming up with a completed spreadsheet or table that you're going to be using in the future. Yeah, I would say the same thing. We usually use this in the concept of trying to come up with the definition of a particular capability. And where I find people starting to get into the name and the description, they're putting a lot of that, other aspects of it. And so one of the questions is, does the process indicate the how? It indicates the how within the capability but not how that capability is used outside of itself. And so that's kind of the distinction that I go with, is that there are some things within that particular business capability that is opaque to some degree outside of itself. Okay, so now we've got a capability name, we've got a definition, we've got some components to help us better and more clearly understand what it is. And now we're going to turn, and I'm going to turn the lead over to Steven to talk about how we actually create a business capability model so going from individual capabilities to actually looking at them as a larger piece and how we would actually create that model. Okay, so a business capability model or sometimes called a business capability map is a graphical or a tabular representation of the complete set of business capabilities that an organisation has today, all that it might need to have tomorrow. And by presenting it in a visual format, you can start to see at a glance where the business needs to focus its attention, which really helps enable better communication or decision making across and between business leaders. So let's look at how you actually build the map and what you end up with. The first goal is to capture and document all of the business capabilities that represent the full scope of what the business does today irrespective of how well it does it or how it does it, which is where you get into value streams and processes and so on. Or in fact what it desires to be able to do in the future because we can start to use things like heat mapping to visually identify current versus future state or perceived gaps in the capability model, which we'll talk about a little bit later. But for now the architect's role is really to identify a starter set of business capabilities that adequately reflects the complete business on a page. And there's a couple of ways to go about this. Ideally using some sort of facilitated workshop with the senior leadership team to identify all of the top level business capabilities that make up the core of the business. Working from the ground up through all of the business units to identify what each does is another approach to take when you don't have the luxury of gathering all the senior leaders together in one place at one time. But that is more of a highly iterative process. So you'll end up with some combination of the two approaches going back and forth, refining the model until you have general agreement across the enterprise about what is the 20 to 30 or so, because that's just a real rough guide. Top level capabilities that represents the business today. And I think in, you know, it's absolutely, and this will depend on the size of your organization. I know for my own organization we're a fairly big organization and so you end up having to do kind of both top down and bottom up just to be able to reconcile them. And usually when you're doing that bottom up, you're doing it based on an organizational structure because that's the way most people would do some of these workshops where you're going down to a specific business unit. So for me, going down to the surgery business unit to understand how they're doing things. And then as you move up the layers, we end up having to reconcile capability definitions or find where there's contention where we've got two business areas that might have defined the same capability, either semantically different at the name or slight differences in what they think it means. And that really ends up being a great conversation for business cross business areas because when you can find out that you do have common capabilities across business areas, we might have an opportunity for us to do something to either centralize that or to use more common tools or to get some better standards so we get better consistency, especially where one area of the business might be executing better than another where they have some ways to understand better how to more consistently and better use that capability. So it's really quite an interesting art and all of you have to be very good facilitators to be able to have some good meaningful constructive dialogue on capability names and definitions. That's equal through this. So this slide depicts some of the areas that you can start to look at. When we say do your homework, we're not suggesting everybody rush out and do homework after this webinar. This is more getting yourself in a place where if you're going to be running facilitated workshops, you've got a starter set that you can put in front of business leaders rather than a blank page which doesn't tend to work quite so successfully. So there is multiple areas across the business that will have documented information that you can go to and use as reference information to start developing the business capability model. So let's look at just one example which is the organizational structure. We've used this example here because it's something that is so easily accessible. Your company's organization chart can really divulge a wealth of information about your business capabilities to get you started on the mapping or modelling process. Because you can see at a glance that your business needs the ability to, in this example, develop products, distribute products, and procure supplies for manufacturing those products. It also needs the ability to manage relationships with partners and suppliers to provide after-sales service and support and so on. The key message we want to put across here is not to make the mistake of simply taking the organization chart and transposing it straight onto your capability map. As we mentioned earlier, an organization chart really reflects more accurately the structure of business functions at a point in time. And these, as we all know and are working for organizations, tend to change quite frequently, at least annually if not more regularly than that. Whereas business capabilities are inherently stable and it's often the case that a single business capability will be delivered or used across multiple business units, sometimes under a different name. So there is certainly not a one-to-one relationship but the organization chart is certainly a key area that can be used to inform you about which capabilities are necessary to include, at least as your starting map. Yeah, I think everybody would normally start with an organization as a starting map because there's usually, we can find some degree of correlation between the way you've organized the business and key business capabilities. But it's important to note some of those other things. I know for myself I like to follow the money because a lot of times following the money in the business plan or in your financial reports, they are going to highlight areas where there's some key business capabilities that are required that may or may not become apparent within the org to start. So when you say do your homework, it really means that I think we need to understand the business strategy and a few other aspects of what the business is trying to do, including the organization so that we can ensure that when we're selecting those top 20 to 30 capabilities, we want to put on that level one capability model or map that they're the right ones that we want to be showing to our most senior stakeholders. So let's look at the structure of a typical business capability map or business capability model itself. And on this chart we can see some typical names of capabilities that we might find in a business. You'll see that the naming convention is where we've used a noun or in some cases you may say that's actually a compound noun. But the point is it's describing a what. What does the business do? Other concepts to be aware of. You'll see that there's three stratification tiers, strategic core and supporting. And there's a second concept about leveling which I'll go into very shortly. The first one about the stratification is really used to help communicate logic to business stakeholders about the relevance or importance of different capabilities to different stakeholder groups. The stratification is the process that you go through to classify, group and align business capabilities within these three categories or tiers or layers. The purpose being to break up the model so that it can be more easily understood by non-architects and users. And it was when we said a collection of 20 to 30 capabilities that's not something to aim for. That just happens to be about the typical number we find when businesses go through this process as being distinct business capabilities that most completely represent everything that a business operation does. Each stratification tier provides a different perspective or a different focal point for each stakeholder group. So allow you to organize your analysis and your planning activities in a more structured way. For example, the top tier, the stratification one, is often aimed at the executive function, their span of control, business capabilities that are related to strategy and direction setting. The middle tier which we've called core and again you don't need to use these terms, these are just typical examples. That's really the customer facing elements of the business. As Alec mentioned, where the revenue really comes from. For the bottom tier groups, the supporting ones, those are business capabilities that are essential for the business to function but are more behind the scenes, playing a type of a supporting role. Yeah, I'm going to try and answer a couple of questions here in my supporting area. Tim is asking why 20 to 30, that seems high because APQC says you could start with 12. You know, there's, I think there's some, whenever you're dealing with a large number of senior stakeholders, you're going to find that we're going to have some compromise to be had to put some things on the top level for a variety of reasons. And I'm just thinking on the one that we've just been doing for our own organization and we've fluctuated between 16 and 24 and I don't know that we've landed yet but that we're hopefully, I would say if you can go lower, that's probably better but just an experience, it seems to be 20 to 30. And it's interesting also to find at times, I found anyway, when you start to say so what are the top level ones and why is this one here versus that one or can these decompose some really great questions around how that gets formed? In fact, the second concept that we're talking about if you want to move to the next slide, Alex, is about levelling and this is where you'll start to narrow down the exact number of level one capabilities that you're going to be ending up with. So levelling is the process of decomposing each top level or level one business capability into a lower level in order to communicate more detail about that. And we do this in order to find the right level of detail to communicate information to the particular audience or stakeholder group concerned. So top level business executives may only want to see that level one capability map with the example that we showed on the previous slide whereas architects and planners will expect to see a much greater level of granularity and this only becomes evident when we decompose and down, we provide more granular definitions and this can then be used by those people involved in more detailed analysis and planning to really understand the nuances, the distinctions about the particular capabilities that are being used at a lower level. So when you go through the levelling process, you start to question, is something a level one or a lower level capability? And you can start to, as Alex suggested, move between 16 and versus 24 level one capabilities. It all depends on who you're communicating the information to, how deep do they want to go with this? And so if you put all your capabilities together, you may end up with literally hundreds in a spreadsheet. So levelling is really important in order to be able to break that down, decompose and build up into an appropriate viewpoint that matches the perspective of the audience that needs to be using the business capability model to do their planning and analysis function. Yeah, there's an interesting question from Galena and I'm not answering everybody's questions yet, but I'm picking a few that seem to be relevant to the slide at hand. You know, what if the enterprise has a bunch of businesses that are different from each other? So for my own organization, we have an emergency medical service, ambulance service that obviously is rather different than what we operate to deliver surgery or deliver lab tests, right? So the top level capability model or map has to speak to the enterprise, but when you get down to a specific business area, this is where you potentially can use some of the capabilities that are a few levels down so that you can have a more relevant conversation with a more lower level executive. But the top level map should be the map that are all of the capabilities that are core and key to the entire enterprise, right? So no matter what business unit you might go and decompose down to at the next level down, you should still have that inheritance back up to the level one capability. So next we want to, this is where you want to start to do that mapping of capabilities and I led into that where you actually want to map to business in this situation organizational unit. We can start to create maps of capabilities mapping to value streams. So we're going to go give you an example of that moving forward. Sometimes we can map capabilities to specific business initiatives, right? In our organization we're suggesting, we're starting a project, that project is trying to improve one or more business capabilities to achieve something, right? So we've actually mapped our projects and sometimes programs to specific business capabilities. And then there's another way to make connections and map capabilities where we actually try to look at heat maps which is looking to say, so visually how can I see whether there's a heat map for strategic contribution or its relative effectiveness, right? So how mature is the capability? There's a lot of different ways and typically a heat map is going to use the normal stoplight metaphor because everybody seems to know red, green and yellow. So you can use a heat map as a way to reorganize capabilities so that you can map between some of these other perspectives as well. I think this is really where the rubber hits the road with business capability modelling. For many business leaders, the first time they see a business capability model or a business capability map, it's kind of a Eureka moment in itself. We often hear that, my goodness, this is the first time I've ever truly grasped the scope of what my business does and the first time I've been able to see it on a page. So that is really useful to see new leaders just developing their business model in the first place. But there's so much more that can be done with business capabilities that are far more beneficial to the organization, which is really when you want to be putting them to work as part of your business strategy, your business analysis, and planning activities. And so these examples here of how you map to other business architecture contexts and do heat mapping is really where you start to deliver value back to your business stakeholders about why are we doing business capability modelling in the first place. So then this is just an example where we're trying to map in this situation we've chosen two business capabilities learning management and project management and we've seen that in this situation IT ends up having a requirement to do project management as the real estate function or business area. And then learning management, HR is doing it in sales and marketing and information technology as well. So what that allows us to go and do again is to say is there an opportunity, right? Let's see if everybody's doing that and I can use my own example in my own organization. I actually have seven different organization units who all deliver education and not unsurprisingly they use seven different learning management systems. And we have a number of distributed teams within that that supply some different components of that and we're able to look at that and say is there an opportunity for us to do this more efficiently and actually coming up with ways to actually have educators follow a more standard process so that the people themselves are doing something differently or whether I have common supporting tools or whether we just even have common standards around what skills are being, how skills are being tracked in the way we do that because as you might imagine in healthcare we need to know at times whether a particular provider is able to do, has learned something so that they're able to deliver a particular service. Anyway, this is just one example of mapping organization to capability and it's obviously a very simple example but I hope it shows you how that could start. The flip side of that of course is that if you have identified that a capability is being used across multiple organizations or multiple business units that should be a red flag to say if I'm going to go and make changes to that capability I need to be aware that it's going to impact across multiple different parts of my business and often when we go doing transformation work or roadmap for new technologies we sometimes forget that making change in one part to a solution or a service that a business provides internally or can have significant downstream impacts on other parts of the organization and so by doing this cross mapping we can at least quickly identify all the relevant affected groups and stakeholders that we need to be across if we're going to be making changes in one particular area of a capability. The other very interesting way to use this I've used in the past is mergers and positions as well so when you think about where you've acquired a company or you've merged organizations this is a really great way to go and start to do that analysis. And then here's an example of the heat map. In this one we've decided to I think are in the guide we've suggested that this is a maturity or relative maturity so what we're saying here is that is this capability operating at the level that the business requires it and if not then we would look at the red one and we'd say HR management or government's relationship management we go and go down and look at the definition and say how is that capability looked now and what does it need to look to be able to meet the requirements of whatever the business strategy or value stream or whatever is indicating that this particular capability is not at the strategic level at this level one. It's just a way to say if I look at where we're investing our time and energy is it related to where we think that we might have some pain. So heat mapping doesn't happen magically. All we're doing is taking the basic or the core capability model that we developed earlier and we're asking questions of it and those questions can be asked and why depending on who the stakeholder is that is asking the question. But it's a very powerful visual tool to help quickly identify the areas that you want to be spending time on developing more detail or looking to invest more in and again any information that you want to ask and we'll end up with a different color scheme, a different heat map whether it's which capabilities are performing better or worse at this point which are contributing more or less to the bottom line which could be outsourced without affecting the overall mission of the company and so forth. This is a very simple example of a red yellow green traffic light and any type of color combinations to quickly indicate which are those capabilities that you want to be drilling down on and really providing insight to help better decision making going forward. The last example of a map is we've changed our paradigm here from an internal service which is recruiting management which is arguably external stakeholder facing because you're going to people outside of your organization to try and recruit them to become part of your organization but in this situation we've chosen a value stream example. In the chat room we've had a couple of questions about value chain versus value stream and we're going to hopefully deal with this particular topic in the next guide that we're working on right now but just to give you a hint of what's coming we want to show in this particular value stream this is putting the action and how of these capabilities been organized to help support us getting in this situation from getting from product to sales right and how are we getting through that logical chain of stages so that and understanding which capabilities support which aspects of each of the stages. It allows us then to understand the value question so when you did well this one's read if you actually overlaid that heat map on this one we might find that while some people think that a problem is payment processing we may find that if we don't have and set up the right aspects of how we do our purchases up front that a prior value stage and a capability at the base stage is actually the thing that's causing the problem at the pain point which is further down the value stream so hopefully a simple way to build these to value stages and value streams. This is a really powerful tool when you're going through strategic planning thinking about how a future business model or a new revenue stream might be wanting to work and so you'd start off with the value stream defining what are those major stages that you would go to in order to deliver value to a customer or to an internal stakeholder and then cross map the various business capabilities that are used to deliver that value stage and as you can see on this example we've just listed out the nine or so business capabilities that apply some apply to multiple value stages when you go through this process you may find that hey we don't have a business capability today that is required to support a key value stream or a key value stage within that value stream and that is really useful information so before you go out and make drastic changes to a business you can really see where you need to be investing in capturing or creating that capability whether it's in-house or using partners and suppliers to do so for you but taking it to the next level and as Alec mentioned putting the heat map viewpoint on top of this is a very very powerful tool for business architects and for enterprise architects to use to help business leaders plan for prioritise their investments and develop really useful roadmaps for what they need to do to get to the point where they are actually delivering on the core value streams that they want to be doing. And I think that's the last slide in our presentation as I mentioned before what's next for us is actually coming up with a value stream guide


So, welcome everyone to the first event in the Sir Michael Howard's New Directions program for 2022. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Dr. Mark Condos and I'm one of the co-directors of the Sir Michael Howard Center for the History of War and I'm also the convener of this new seminar series. And I'm very happy tonight to introduce our speaker, Dr. Tom Manger. Tom is a postdoctoral research associate currently at Ludwig Maximilian's University in Munich. And I actually had the pleasure of meeting Tom while he was still a PhD student and he was completing part of his PhD at Queen Mary University of London. His recently completed doctoral dissertation entitled Colonial Violence in European Comparative Perspective 1890 to 1914 examines the process of knowledge sharing when it came to theories of practice of colonial warfare across the German, British German and Dutch colonial empires during the Founder's Siege. And Tom's work demonstrates how colonial violence was rooted in a common body of knowledge rather than shaped by individual national cultures. So it's a very interesting and I think important intervention into this field that some people might disagree with, but anyway. More recently, Tom's also published an article just in, I believe, January of 2022 in itinerario entitled Press the Thumb on to the Eye, Moral Effects, Extreme Violence and the Trans-Imperial Notions of British German and Dutch Colonial Warfare, circa 1890 to 1914. So that's the end of my introduction. I'll turn it now over to Tom and just a reminder, please keep your microphones on mute until the Q and A after. So Tom, take it away. Yes, thank you. Thank you so much for this kind introduction and I would like to thank you actually for this opportunity to speak here. I remember doing some archival research for this project back in 2018 at Queen King's College at the Little Heart Center. And while I'm delighted to be able to present some of the project results here today at this place, even if only virtually. And yeah, I would also like to commend you for putting together this exciting lecture series on New Directions and History of War and Violence. And I hope the long story I will be forcing upon you today will prove at least a bit worthy of the series title. So I'll share my screen. Can everybody see the PowerPoint? Seems okay. Yes, good. So, okay, maybe before I set off possibly needless to say about just a warning here that this paper contains historical material that might shock or offend due to its violence or racial language. So on the 22nd of June, 1879, an English newspaper carried the following article and they quote, when a French word war in Algeria, they incurred great odium because they smoked and suffocated the brave Arabs who fought under Abdul Qadir. Sometimes they took refuge in caves and on one occasion, Marshall Bourgeois and Marshall Bourgeoisy sealed up the mouth and just suffocated the poor inmates. Remember too, how all this was announced in England. Lord Palmerston especially went down to Tiverton to make a speech about it. And all England, thank God, and we were not as other men, not even as those Frenchmen. Well, now in Zuland, that's actually Bazutaland, we're doing something very like with Bourgeois and Bourgeoisy, and it is not pleasant reading which comes to us. So the quote stands here as a sort of teaser. I will come back to the story of the caves later in my presentation. First however, I think the newspaper article points us here to something that historians have done too little to place the colonial violence of one empire in relation to that of others. Research in the field of colonial war has often remained nationally fragmented or even actively invested in theories of national exceptionalism. And in today's paper, I hope to be able to show some to show some steps towards the trans-imperial history of colonial war and violence. And I draw here on my own doctoral dissertation on the British, German and Dutch Empire between approximately 1890 and 1914. And as a source base, I analyzed there the corpus of manuals of colonial warfare to distill sort of the basic notions of petitioners on colonial warfare. And I also used a selection of five case studies from the said empires to study how these notions reflected in practice. And these case studies as listed here on the PowerPoint are the endabilia shona rising in Rhodesia that's current days in Bapua, the so-called hot tax war in Sierra Leone, the Roman Nama war in German Southwest and the Magi Magi war in German East Africa that's currently in Namibia and Tanzania. And finally also for a Dutch empire, the Archive War in the Netherlands, East Indies. So for this paper, I will proceed as following. First, I will elaborate on national exceptionalism in research on colonial violence and how we might go beyond it. And I will then touch upon connections among empires as one of the key elements of a trans-imperial history. And I will then close with two larger case studies on specific practices of violence to further illustrate some of the points made. To start with, it's useful to remark here on the limits of this research. When Sierra and colonial war transpirally, one can look at many different things, but my research has been focused on the knowledge and practices of extreme violence that mark colonial wars. It's a focus which admittedly has complicated my job quite a bit, but I also think it's the field most in need of a history that transcends the borders of empires. Now, I realized some more words on the term of extreme violence are in order here. First of all, I'm concerned exclusively with physical violence. And secondly, there are no objective measures to define what constitutes extreme or transgressive violence. And in a way, I adopt a pragmatic approach here, looking at what was considered as transgressive by contemporaries. The fancy eclopyrid witness concerns attempts at regulating and restraining violence in wars between European powers, the so-called civilized wars. And this culminated in international laws of war laid down in the Geneva and Hague conventions of 1864 and 1899 and 1907. However, the use of methods that transgressed these commonly accepted boundaries of civilized warfare continued to be a general feature of the end of the colonial wars waged by European powers in the same time period. Charles Caldwell, the most famous theoretician of colonial warfare, even saw this aspect of, quote, committing havoc, which in laws of regular warfare do not sanction as a defining feature of what he called small wars. The contemporaries, thus, were very much aware of these boundaries of what was considered transgressive violence and what was not something also borne out by, quote, that German quote here, or, well, the quote is not in German, but it was originally in German. So transgression of these boundaries does only became self-evident in wars against the so-called uncivilized, the fact that it had to be mentioned as such, however, makes clear that there was a distinct sense of what in European warfare was indeed considered transgressive. So why has a trans-imperial history of extreme violence in colonial wars around 1900 not been forthcoming so far? One thing I think has been the outspoken tendency in military history in particular to focus attention to typical institutions, armies, and doctrines, and both, certainly for the time period on our consideration here, were understood to be national institutions. The corollary has been that the men are colonial wars were waged has frequently been assumed to be the outflow of such national institutions as well. Many scholars have been keen on finding some state specific elaborate and formalized doctrine of war in the colonies where that could not be found at least in national way of war, national school, military culture or approach. And as you can see, the list has become quite long already and I'm afraid it's still growing. And unsurprisingly, this has brought forth approaches that are highly national exceptionalist in character. And a great number of these might actually be familiar to you, such approaches have been particularly prominent in historiography on the German colonial violence. Since the early 2000s, the rise of interest in the genocide committed by German soldiers in Southwest Africa at the beginning of the 20th century has produced a host of publications that have interpreted the events there as precursors to national socialist racial policy, mass murder and destruction in Europe between 1939 and 1945. And these arguments often refer to as the Vintog to Auschwitz or Colonial Zandavek thesis have been advanced particularly by the work of Jungtzimola. Isabel Ho on the other hand has put forward a very different but also highly influential version of German particularity. In her review, the genocide committed in what is now Namibia with the outcome of a specific military culture of the German Prussian army, which prescriptions proved so spectacularly unsuited for clinicians in the colony that they spiraled out of control and finally ushered into extermination. In the British case, the focus on national doctrines has also produced theories of national particularity, especially around the British interwar doctrine of minimum force, which is lab scholars such as Thomas Mokaites and Rothhorn to claim that British colonial counterinspiracy is to distinguish itself by special restraint. And in part powerful institutional incentives have also been at work there. This has been felt in a British and two degrees in the Dutch case where national military is after 9-11 showed themselves quite keen on discovering a supposedly successful and benevolent national tradition of counterinsurgency in the colonial past. And this is obviously not to speak yet of the way this issue has also been and continues to be entangled with more general politics of remembrance and identity concerning the imperial past. And to be sure for all these exceptional theories I have been attempts to debunk them. The shortcoming of these attempts however, is that they refute national exceptionality largely from within a national framework. The transinferable perspective is either absent or lacks a larger empirical base. Where the violence is classified as part of a larger European phenomenon, it remains unclear where in the commonalities it consists beyond the reference to a number of comparable practices. I believe we really need more in order to grasp the character of what in the end was also shared Western way of war, just a very different one. So to start with, I posit that we have to look for commonality in the existence of a transinferial body of knowledge that legitimized and generated such extreme violence. This also means being attentive to the common role that the perception of racial utterness played in shaping his body of thought. More racism and racialized difference in engendering the extreme violence of colonial war continues to be debated in scholarships such as Isabel Holt or Dieg Weiter's Survey of European Colonial Violence based on deeply racism's importance seeing it predominantly as a post facto legitimation tool. However, I believe this misses an important development. While certain racialized conceptions about the war against a non-European utter might once have served mainly as post facto justifications of extreme violence and increasing repetition and reproduction over time meant that by the turn of the century they proceeded the event. It become commonly accepted knowledge and co-determined how actors fought a colonial war right from the beginning. A process of escalation was not necessary anymore. The practitioners of colonial warfare generally knew or at least thought they knew how to fight such a war. The use of extreme violence have become linked not so much the structural circumstances of the theater of war but to the self-evident perception of the utterness of the colonial opponent. And such common conceptions of racial utterness of the enemy give rise to a basic set of precepts for colonial warfare. And I have dubbed these the five basic imperatives of colonial warfare. And I believe they stood at the heart of this body of knowledge on colonial war. Rather than by some elaborate doctrine the practitioners of colonial warfare were guided by exactly these basic notions which were truly trans-imperial. I've opted for the term imperative as they very much sought to prescribe what colonial warfare in the eyes of the practitioners must do or achieve. It had to generate a moral effect on the opponent and had to create a lasting peace by using heavy force first. It had to be bold and offensive. It had to punish. And increasingly it also had to produce high dust or in other words to massacre. Needless to say generally these imperatives operated in combination but it will take here a moral effect as one example. So moral effect was generally agreed to be a central imperative of colonial war as the two quotes here on the PowerPoint also illustrate and they were taken from a British and a German manual respectively. Like the other imperatives moral effect was based on thoroughly racialized view of the opponent. It fitted well with beliefs about the irrationality of the so-called native mind. It's supposed in capability of rationally weighing arguments. It's susceptibility to shock and the idea that it would only listen to violence. It equally subscribed to beliefs about the alleged effeminateness of most so-called lower races. Tellingly these characteristics represented everything the European soldier supposedly was not. And how this notion contributed to the extreme character of colonial warfare becomes clear for instance in the Cossack Porter's remarks on the Zulu war in his essay titled Warfare Against Uncivilized Races. And they quote him, in the earlier phase of the war, the Zulu's had suffered at least as happily in more than one engagement as they did in a final battle at the Lundi. But the moral effect of the advance, the devastation and the burning of a king's crowd were one thing. So obviously battle here was not considered enough. It needed additional violence to generate the hope for moral effect. The quote also demonstrates the important link between legitimation and generation of violence in this body of knowledge. And it's interesting here, or interesting here is also one of the notions first mentioned in the German colonial manual as moral effect as you can see in the quote on the left. And this appears to indicate, in fact, it's British origins as a more common German term would actually have been moral effect. And moral effect really seems to be a direct translation in that sense and that the author had indeed come to know the term from British context is not implausible. After all, Peter that's been several years in London where he had also read up on the British Empire. Furthermore, another German colonial so-called pioneer, Evans and Wismann, actually counseled his readers on the first page of his own manual of 1895 to study the British colonial wars in order to prepare militarily for what he called African conditions. Actually, as you hear, he says not British but English but he means the same. Which brings us to the second major point of this paper, Trans-Imperial Connectivity. It's Daniel Heddinger and the Dean Hehrite. It's precisely the new empirical field of connections between and among empires that defines a Trans-Imperial history. It's also an aspect that are missing in the comparative survey, surveys of colonial war that we have such as by Diego Guaidro or Jacques Frimoul. In the field of colonial war, however, the transfer or circulation of knowledge is not easy to grasp conceptually. 10 years ago, Robert Gawad and Stefan Malinowski postulated a common Western colonial archive quote, to be understood as common knowledge on the treatment, exploitation and extermination of subhumans accumulated by Western powers. They did, however, not elaborate on the archive's precise forms or on how it might have come about. My research suggests that we should first think about such processes along the lines of what come in second, Keimbaum have called an Imperial Cloud. And deliberately playing on the association with the digital cloud, the author defining Imperial Cloud asked, quoting on a shared reservoir of knowledge, which was not bound to a single empire but had a multi-local existence and was accessible to agents of different empires, both from peripheries and to metaphors. Therefore, the Imperial Cloud is explicitly trans-imperial. Neither the cloud itself nor access to it are under control of one single empire. Although certainly power relations are still at work in determining who can access and particularly who can contribute to it. Fundamentally, the Imperial Cloud accounts for the quote, often unplanned and unsystematic spread of Imperial knowledge and the constant transformation at inner wind. It acknowledges that Imperial knowledge transfers are in many cases not detectable or traceable by historians. And other actors regularly also stay silent in these processes. One of the big questions when studying knowledge transfers in colonial war and violence is therefore where to look for avenues of transfer. Studying trans-imperiality in other fields has often come down to investigating international correspondences, conferences, diplomatic gatherings and journals. We do not really have these for the field of colonial warfare. Nevertheless, the field had its written publications and these are certainly worth looking into. The famous British manual by Charles Cowell, for instance, and still too often seen exclusively in the context of a British way of war actually carry examples from eight other empires. And you can see all of them listed on the PowerPoint. Some other manuals were also highly trans-imperial. These footnotes from a 1930 Dutch handbook actually unite references to four non-Dutch publications on a single page, as you can see there. And more examples can be found. Certain publications thus certainly contributed to shaping a more common language among empires. However, I believe they reflect the trans-imperial character of colonial war at that point rather than that they brought it into being. Most of these trans-imperial publications came rather late into the found siacra and the aspect of extreme violence was not always prominent in them. Rather, where such violence is mentioned in reference to other empires, what is striking is its inconspicuousness which confirms how similar it was perceived by practitioners across empires but does not seem to indicate a clear instance of transfer. For transfers, I believe we should look elsewhere. This means at times to go beyond the imperial clout. Garmeseg and Kreienbaum hold that knowledge, quote, was stored in the myriads of manuals and reports, articles, travelogues, and pictures which were accessible to all empires and of course also to the hats of people. However, as I would argue, the hats of people could also serve as storages and carriers of knowledge themselves. The fundamental role in transferring knowledge on the transgressive violence of colonial campaigning was not occupied by written tracks or official military observer missions which rather by the mobility of individuals be they regular soldiers, settlers, or primateers who transferred knowledge from one context to another, mainly by oral transmission. Their itineraries or their roots of violence, so to say, can regularly be traced and at times such roots also crossed the boundaries of empires. Take for instance, Hermann von Wismann and Quote von François, the first commander to the colonial armies in German East and German Southwest Africa respectively. Instead of being representative of a specific German tradition, both had previous experiences of colonial warfare in the so-called exploration of the Congo basin in the name of King Leopold, the Belgian King Leopold in the 1880s. The fact that both have been socialized into such violence in the Congo endeavor which itself is a highly transnational venture makes the idea of a specific national tradition to be untenable. Also, it was not only the mobility of Europeans that was key. In Germany's Africa, the initial core of the colonial army was formed by the so-called Sudanese who were officers by German volunteers. The Sudanese have been recruited by Wismann when he set out to form a mercenary army to suppress the Bushiri revolt, as it was called, on the East African coast. Many of the Sudanese belong to groups such as the Dinka, Shilu, Xanlor, Bagara, residing in a region now known as South Sudan or Sudan. They were socialized in a system of slave soldiering in which young men were captured to be incorporated in the region's military institutions and in cooperation which started out as enslavement but did frequently morph into a more ambiguous military clientage. With the onset of the modest war in the Sudan in the 1880s, many of these soldiers came to fight in the Egyptian army under British leadership. They were just trained after European models and came to participate in the colonial warfare of the Anglo-Egyptian army. After suffering a number of disastrous defeats, that army had left the Sudan for the time being in 1885. A larger number of the Sudanese soldiers ended up unemployed in slums of Cairo where Wismann was then to recruit some 900 of them in 1889. Thus, while Wismann had formed a new colonial force, the bulk of its African personnel carried extensive knowledge on colonial warfare which was now transferred from the Anglo-Egyptian context to the German East African one. That German colonizers highly valued the knowledge of the Iskari was confirmed as late as 1911 when a colonial military manual stated that, quote, it does not hurt a European if he notwithstanding his complete responsibility, gathers the advice of old experience, NCOs and the Iskari in difficult situations. I now want to move on to discussing two practices of violence that are considered typically colonial with which I also hope to further illustrate some of the points made so far. So the first practice I want to pick here is the so-called cave dynamiting in Michonaland, Rhodesia, during the Andabila-Chonau war of 1896 and 1887. And when I started my research, I came upon this still little known instance of brutal colonial violence rather by accident. Little could I know that it would gain a curious political relevance recently and becoming embroiled in a controversy around the road statue at Oxford. However, the case is relevant here to me because of what it can say first about notions of British exceptionalism in colonial warfare and secondly about the trans-nuclear character even of lesser known practices of colonial violence. And finally, it also illustrates the points made before about the modes of knowledge transfer. So when the Chonau people rose against the oppression of British South Africa company role in Michonaland in 1896, the settler and imperial troops sent out against them soon found out that the Chonau were often without reach. Traditionally, Chonau communities had built their villages on copches or hills where caves nearby generally offered a refuge in the case of danger and you can see one sketch of this on the PowerPoint. British attacks on Chonau villages therefore ended almost invariably at the mouth of the caves. The partitioners of colonial warfare, the pacifity in front of the caverns violated some of the central tenets of the colonial wave. Yes, dude. I am okay. Where was it? So it made the colonizers appear weak and impotent in phase of the so-called native and supposedly feel to produce a moral effect. First hand accounts testify to the sense of frustration and a quote from a letter. For instance, Aldersund is much blamed for leaving the crowd after he took it. In fact, he seems to be floating around from stronghold to stronghold, burning the huts and leaving Yang. You can imagine when it says laughing in the caves or from a diary. We did not have any systematic way to try and do them harm. We did nothing but loiter about the place. So it was in this situation that British troops started to insert and explode dynamite into the cave refuges while fully aware that they housed men, women, and children. The myth of British restraint was still active when historian Victor Kirnan, rather disingenuously, claimed of this that explosives were set of only to quote, frighten the occupants, men and women, to giving themselves up. Historical sources, however, speak a rather different language. I don't think I have to read all of these because they rather speak to themselves, I think. Oh, there's something in the chat. Can I miss something? Now, massacres in caves were nothing new to colonial warfare. And public awareness, however, they are mainly linked to the French Empire and the so-called en fumale in Algeria in the 1840s. There, French troops had smoked the death hundreds of men, women, and children in caves, causing outrage in European press at the time. The practice was still known to Charles Calvo when he wrote his manual in the 1890s and stated cryptically of warfare in Algeria that quote, caves and clefts of rock formed strongholds not easily rested from a savage foe. More explicitly, the German Carpitas had already recommended the method in a small booklet on Germany's Africa writing them. The caves cannot be taken but by stuffing all exits they generally have three with combustible materials and setting fire to it. So far, this is a story of the imperial cloud of knowledge being somehow available for download to the agents of empire, yet the exact lines of transmission remaining unclear. At the same time, however, many individual routes of violence were converging underground in Rhodesia. As it is, wars in Britain often also in conjunction had been using the same smoking out method for decades at the South African frontier. Since the late 1870s, smoke out there sometimes been substituted for by dynamite, probably influenced by the South African mining boom which employed copies amounts of the explosives. It was likely no coincidence that a large number of men who found themselves in Rhodesia in 1896 came exactly from this larger frontier area marked by colonial warfare and mining, an area which covered both the British possessions at the cave and the war of publics. Even if the connections cannot be definitely established, everything seems to indicate that it was men from this frontier region who brought the practice to Rhodesia. And the numerous instances of cave dynamite that has occurred in Michonneal entities two years also became a process of knowledge production themselves for, and however cynical this may sound, its perpetrate is also accumulated and refined practical knowledge over time. The British army, far from considering this embarrassing episode, best forgotten, apparently found this knowledge useful enough to codify it in the so-called Precy of 1899. It was meant to prepare officers for service in Rhodesia. The Precy reproduced a detailed report on how to best prepare and execute and execute cave dynamitings, not only giving exact amounts of dynamite to be employed, but also not forgetting to mention that breakfast could be had in between, and that's where the arrows are pointing at actually. But typical for such a written knowledge production, silences and euphemisms were interspersed in narrative. The report chose to remain silent on the fact that women and children had also been killed in the caves. And the curious transpirational wonderings of the practice did not end there. In 1911, cave dynamite made an appearance in the German guidebook for East Africa in which it was recommended to blast the entrances of cave refuges or throwing in charges of dynamite before storming them. You do not know whether this was in any way linked to the British precedents in Southern Africa. It does demonstrate, however, the transpiral range of many practices of colonial violence and how potential transfers often remain veiled. The second case I wish to highlight here concerns questions of German particularity and touches on the genocide of the railroad in 1904 in current day Namibia. And I put a short timeline of the war here just to recall some details I cannot really elaborate that much on the war itself. But this event has been described in the influential reading by Isabel Howell as the outcome of a metropolitan Prussian-German so-called military culture. According to her, this military culture prompted German commanders, both Olaf and Trotha, to cling dogmatically to a European-style concentric battle to destroy their enemy. And when the railroad managed to flee the encirclement at Waterberg, the German army switched to the second standard script of this military culture, a relentless pursuit. And you see a picture of the Waterberg narrative. But when the German troops equally failed to catch up in pursuit with the fleeing railroad, they finally decided to seal off the desert and not allow any railroad to return, spelling the death of thousands in the desert. And this reading by Howell, however, overlooks the importance of colonial thinking in the unfolding of the events, events which, as I would argue, are much better understood in a trans-imperial frame of reference. First of all, Trotha was not a typical metropolitan officer. Rather, as Christopher Kamasek has pointed out, Trotha could look back at several years of colonial experience in East Africa and China when he came to Southwest Africa in 1904 More generally, that the Germans aimed for a battle on encirclement is not sufficient reason to assume that the war was fought exclusively on metropolitan lines. Colonial texts, too, preferred encirclement tactics, as this would allow to inflict high losses on the opponent, preclude a protracted guerrilla war, even if colonial manuals admitted that the encirclement was often, that encirclement was often infeasible to bring about in specific conditions. Nevertheless, after 1900, it's clearly discernible in the British, German, and Dutch colonial handbooks that actors increasingly emphasize the employment of envelopment tactics to bring about a bloody conclusion in colonial war. For instance, the Dutch manual by M.E.A. Bosch urged, quote, complete encirclement of enemy positions. And interestingly, he quoted here a German colonial handbook of 1903, as you can see there. I mean, you can at least see that it is in German, I hope. So, obviously, Bosch did not perceive something peculiar, German there, with the static common understanding of the necessities of colonial warfare. Similarly, Charles Cowell had, in his earlier manuals, still advocated leaving an encircled enemy a loophole for escape, so it still avoid the danger of a desperate opponent. By the 1906 edition, however, his recommendation had been omitted entirely. Isabel Howell further holds that the transition to genocide in Southwest Africa after the unsuccessful encirclement at Waterberg and the field pursuit should be understood in the context of a German military culture in the search for complete destruction of the enemy and so-called final solutions to problems. This, after a too earlier failure, supposedly led to the adoption of a genocidal policy. It seems to me, however, that for an officer with a longer colonial experience like von Trotha, what was much more important were certain colonial and racialized mode of thinking about colonial settlement and the ways of securing it. It's these modes that allowed to place Trotha in broader trans-liberal contexts in which extermination to time could become thinkable. For when Trotha in 1909 defended his own genocidal policy in a newspaper article, he made reference to a book passage by the famous British imperial adventurer, big game hunter and settler, Fredericks Lu, who had written on Matabealand in Rhodesia, and he quote, therefore Matabealand is doomed by what seems a law of nature to be ruled by the white man and the black man must go or conform to the white man's laws or die resisting them. This was what Matthias Hoisler has called a triad of submission, expulsion or extermination. The basic settler colonial idea that if the black man was not the seductive white man, he was here to expel or exterminate it. The same rationale can also be seen in Trotha's infamous Vernichtungsbefeer or extermination order released during the war itself which some of you are probably familiar with and put it here in its entirety on the PowerPoint. And I think which quite clearly it quite clearly demonstrates this triad as well, even if the line between expulsion and extermination is already blurred and it's not entirely clear whether one should come before the other but we have first sort of the failure of submission which then leads to either expulsion or extermination. And the triad appears to me the connecting trans-imperial element here. We do not only find it with Sulu or Trotha but also with other British actors engaged in Rhodesia in the 1890s. General Carrington for instance who would be officer commanding of all troops in Rhodesia in the war of 1896 had already raised the option of expulsion of the Annabela if they were not to quote live in peace with the white man in 1893 and he would do so again in 1896 and the quotes again are on the PowerPoint. So though Carrington did not touch on the third element of the triad extermination his language of the last mercy the batter and don't clean appear to come close as we know expulsion or extermination is not what would finally occur in Rhodesia but it shows the similarity of thinking between Rhodesia and Germany and South Africa or more broadly between the two empires and there are some other interesting links between the two cases as well. One might point here for instance to the figure of Kurt Schwabe who had served in German Southwest Africa in 1890 before becoming an influential publicist on the colony in German circles and also later colonial advisor to the German government as well as the author of one of the foremost accounts of the River Nama War. And interestingly like Kurt Schwabe had also read Salus' work on Rhodesia already mentioning the book in the literature list of his 1903 colonial military manual as you can see on the right and that was actually before the River Nama War and he also referred to the Anabela rising in his later account of the Germany River War which came out in 1908. So to end the story of mutual observation we might take appear Koval's comment on the German killing over the river in the desert. Koval criticized how the slow movement of German columns had led the river to escape from the Waterberg but it appears he actually held it to German credit that at least every river quote appeared to have suffered severely after the withdrawal into a district of Sandfell. A rejection of these German methods is not discernible. From his own British perspective Koval did not seem to see anything abjectionable in the final court's defense and here that my two main strands of argumentation of this paper converge again not only in not only trans-imperial connectivity in the British attention here to German colonial warfare but also the question of national exceptionalism to Koval one of the most eminent contemporary theories of colonial warfare after all it was apparently a little exceptional to the German court of action. As I've argued we need to move away from a preoccupation with finding national military doctrines of colonial warfare which are often fallacious suggestions of national particularity in colonial violence rather if we focus on a more basic body of thought determined by certain colonial and often also racialized images of the opponent we will find many connecting elements across empires elements that were influential in shaping extreme violence on the ground and in the second step such a trans-imperial history also means investigating how colonial warfare as a phenomenon evolved in a dense web with mutual interaction observation and transfer among empires as my examples have shown such connections were rarely straightforward or manifest and in many cases we will not be able to trace exactly how an imperial cloud or colonial archive on colonial violence came about writing a trans-imperial history of this phenomena will therefore always be more intricate less clear-cut and more complicated than theorizing about say colonial zombie or national doctrines of minimum force it will, however, bring us much closer to understanding colonial war and violence around 1900s for what they were namely phenomena that transcended imperial borders and I thank you very much for your attention


Nano and micromotors have been demonstrated in vitro for a range of applications. Here the authors demonstrate the in vivo therapeutic use of micromotors to treat H. This article was authored by Bertha Esteban Fernandez de Avila, Pavamolang Santical, Jinxing Li and others.