Today we focus specifically on conflict about land use in the Olifants River valley between 1725 and the 1780s.
Dr. Mitchell identifies components of a "historical argument". First, there is a chronology, or explanation of a sequence of events. Second, there is evidence of events on the chronology. Then there is a claim about the causes of these events. Some explanatory principle must be used to account for continuity or change. Last, there is a discussion of significance. In other words, we need to explain why we should care about these events.
The Olifants River Valley is in the Western Cape of South Africa. It would have been a nine hour ox ride from Cape Town, but we could get there in two hours today. The climate is arid and the land is rocky and dry. Irrigation from this river is important for farmers in this region since 1775. Much of the vegetation here is endemic. There is a low carrying capacity for this region. There are no herds and little large game, as the plant-life cannot sustain large animal populations. There were some rhinos and hippos through the 18th century but never many. There is an abundance of rock art sites in this river valley, including images of elephants. Along with this, European accounts confirm that there were elephants in this region from time to time.
In 1725, men began to claim land in the valley, mostly for grazing cattle and to supplement permanent farms closer to the city. Yet by 1763, there was the beginning of a permanent settlement. Although most of the claimants were white males, there are some instances of racial diversity. When we look at a formal claim for land, we can read this as a mere financial transaction, or we can see this as an example of the Dutch East India Company violently taking land from and selling it to others. Regardless of which interpretation you take up, this practice was legitimized by the government.
Halve Dorschvloer is the name of a farm on Karnemelksvlei. It was family property located on the east side of the Olifants River. It was a loan farm, but like many loan farms, were owned by a single family for multiple generations. The Burger family, in one form or another, leased the land for 26 years. This information is pieced together from multiple sources. Official land records indicate that one many had a claim to the land for 19 years, but the death certificate for that man indicates that his wife was actually running the land for half of that time. And although there is no official record of the son making a land claim, there are letters that indicate that he was pursuing a claim to this land.
The institutions that managed land use precluded the possibility for shared land use. In other words, they excluded the Khoisan from using the land and favored settlers. Although both relied in herds for their wealth, only the settlers had access to land after the 18th century. Not only did they lose land but also the ability to reproduce their culture. The power dynamic that had been set up was inherently unbalanced. As a result, Khoisan were somewhat integrated into colonial society, since they could not longer maintain their own society. They had to be part of the labor force because they could not herd cattle or hunt the land.
Dr. Mitchell notes that the basic cultural differences between Khoisan and settlers led to a basic incompatibility where two moral economies conflicted within a single biome.
No comments:
Post a Comment