Hunter Gatherers

The purpose of this article is to provide constructive criticism on how southern African governments, more specifically the governments of Angola, Botswana, Namibia and Tanzania, are approaching the issue of governance of their hunter-gatherer minorities - in particular, the San.

Hunter-gatherers still occur in Angola, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa,
Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Zambia.

An alternative approach is offered, designed to turn what for the governments amounts to a "problem", into an opportunity. It is not the intention to flesh out all the details of the proposed approach here, only to outline the main principles.

The governments concerned quite rightly need to be criticized severely, since current policies are without doubt founded in a deep racism, practiced by southern African blacks against their San cousins. For the proposed alternative to work, it is important that governments should face up squarely and openly to the facts, and admit to the discriminatory status quo. A critical component of the alternative approach is that, from the start, it should be based on honesty to ensure its future success. It is essential also, for governments to make a clean break from the past, thus ridding themselves of historic baggage.

The question may well arise: why spend so much effort and time on a dwindling minority, the hunter-gatherers, which is in any event likely to become extinct within the next few decades? The answer to this important question is addressed below.

The ideas expressed are not new. The South African government has, in fact, adopted a policy similar to the one proposed here. In the case of South Africa, it has been relatively easy to implement their enlightened policy, because of the very small number of people involved. In the case of Botswana and Namibia, where the number of people involved is much more significant, much more effort will have to be expended in order to effect the necessary change.

Importantly, the proposed approach offers an opportunity to convert a "problem" to an "opportunity".

In the same way that National Parks are never created in a bottom-up fashion, the issue of the governance of minorities by its nature unfortunately also requires a top-down approach. The reason is that, where hunter-gatherers are concerned, initially local and national priorities inherently never coincide. It requires strong leadership at national level, to set the ball rolling. It does of course not mean that policy changes should be implemented without prior consultation with those affected, at local level. Great care needs to be taken to ensure that affected parties' views are heard, and the rights of all those affected are respected.

It is often said that the maturity of a democracy is best measured by the manner in which it governs its minorities. By adopting enlightened policies towards the San and other hunter-gatherers of southern Africa, the governments concerned can affirm their coming-of-age as democracies, whilst at the same making a real contribution to the preservation of a unique lifestyle, which formed the basis of humankind's existence for hundreds of millennia, long before the advent of the Neolithic and Industrial Revolutions.

At the same time, it affords an opportunity to exploit a unique asset, endemic to southern Africa, to the full advantage of the local population and the areas in which San and other hunter-gatherers occur, through increased tourism. Tourists will undoubtedly flock to areas where they are to be found, in their natural state, provided the "packaging" is up to standard.

This article mainly addresses the issues affecting southern African San and other hunter-gatherers (e.g. the Otjimba of the Baynes Mountains in Namibia and the Chokwe and Twa hunter-gatherers of Lunda Norte Province in Angola). Although it may also be largely applicable to the hunter-gatherer Pygmies of Central Africa, in countries such as Cameroon, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo, Gabon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda, these fall outside the scope of this article.

Baynes Mountains, Namibia: Otjimba collects wild honey

Chokwe hunting in Lunda Norte Province in northern Angola

Background

The first truly global economic revolution, i.e. the onset of the Neolithic period at the end of the last ice age, when Man exchanged his hunting-and-gathering lifestyle for a more organized, secure and productive lifestyle of farming, has had as dramatic an impact on Africa as it has had on the other continents.

Agronomists introduced a myriad of exotic species of grain and other food plants whilst pastoralists introduced exotic animal species such as domestic cattle, goats and sheep into Africa, from the Middle East and Asia.

The introduction of cattle and sheep occurred from Egypt and the Nile delta more than 8000 years ago, expanding west- and southwards into Africa and reaching the extremities of the continent approximately 2000 years ago. Goats and chickens were introduced from the Arabian Peninsula thereafter.

Cattle were introduced into Africa from Asia via Egypt
about 8000 years ago.

Goats and chickens were introduced
from the Arabian Peninsula

Farmers were most successful in terms of food production, gradually invading and displacing the hunter-gatherers from their land, who until then occupied the entire southern Africa.

The two lifestyles i.e. hunting-and-gathering vs. farming, had diametrically opposed requirements - they were, in fact, mutually exclusive. The farmers would settle near the best (and often scarce) grazing and water holes, driving the game away. The hunter-gatherers, finding it increasingly difficult to hunt, would target the stock animals of the farmers.

The hunter-gatherers were systematically pushed either into the rain forests (of Central Africa) where there was no grazing available, or into the drier parts of the continent, such as the Kalahari, where surface water was insufficient to sustain animal stock or, for that matter, any other farming.

During the past two centuries, the second, truly global economic revolution, i.e. the industrial revolution, brought relatively cheap, readily available, mass-produced products to southern Africa, including road building and borehole drilling equipment. The last vestiges of the semi-desert hunter-gatherers, the San, were thus opened up to farming, finally destroying the last of the habitats suitable for hunting-and-gathering. The same is currently also occurring in the rain forests of Central Africa, where industrial scale logging has become possible and where the Pygmies of Central Africa, distant descendants of the San, face the same destiny if current trends are allowed to continue.

The Industrial Revolution brought drilling equipment with
which arid regions could be opened up for livestock farming.

The Industrial Revolution also brought road building equipment with which remote areas could be opened up to markets, like the Trans-Kalahari Highway, shown here.

Today the San and other hunter-gatherers of southern Africa find themselves living in small, isolated areas in the drier parts of the continent. Those areas that are still suitable for hunting and gathering are almost without exception under extreme pressure from encroaching farming, and rapidly disappearing. The deeply traditional and unique lifestyle of hunting and gathering is expected to become extinct within the next 10--20 years, unless dramatic measures are now taken to safeguard it.

Distribution of San hunter-gatherers, 6000BC.

Distribution of San and San-derived
hunter-gatherers, 2000AD

(Incidentally, the above also applies almost verbatim to the survival of the game of southern Africa. The requirements for survival of the wild game and of the San are perfectly congruent. Some far-sighted people, such as the district commissioner of Ghanzi District, who already in 1953 (ironically, when colonization of Africa had reached its peak) became aware of this symbiotic relationship that existed between Botswana's San and wild game, led the British Government to create the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, the world's largest national park, larger than Denmark. The intention was specifically to safeguard the lifestyle of the San living in that area, together with the wild game on which they depended, against the systematic encroachment of cattle farming).

Government and the San

Like the native Indians of North America, the San has been driven off their lands on a grand scale. It, however, serves no purpose to blame any one group for this historical harm that has been done to the San. The Bantu of West Africa, when migrating southwards with their cattle, via the eastern savannahs of Africa, did drive the indigenous San off their lands, but so did the Khoi (who were nothing but San which had intermarried with the Bantu and had also become farmers) even before that. Subsequently Arab slave traders from the Arabian Peninsula captured and traded large numbers of San as slaves in the East. Much later, white settlers in the Dutch Cape Colony were known to have regarded the San as vermin - quota permits were sometimes issued to hunt and kill San found in the hinterland of the Cape Colony. The root cause of the historical animosity towards the San derives solely from the inherent incompatibility between the farming and hunting-and-gathering lifestyles.

A strong element of racial discrimination has, over a long period, developed amongst pastoral farmers against the San, mainly by incorrectly equating race with the threat posed to animal stocks through poaching and killing by the San. Today, the resulting racial discrimination is unfortunately as strong as ever amongst communities living in or areas near where the San are still to be found and has spilled over into issues concerning land ownership. Black political leaders are aware of the strong emotions that are evoked amongst their supporters, where matters of land settlement and grazing pastures are concerned, and more often than not play the race card to full political advantage. With their extreme minority status, the San invariably end up holding the short end of the stick. Numerous examples can be quoted.

The fundamental and deep differences in culture between the Bantu and San have aggravated the animosity that exists between the San and the Bantu.

Black southern African culture is deeply rooted in primitive tribal based social structures that have evolved with the associated pastoral/agronomic socio-economic lifestyle, over thousands of years. Its main characteristic is that of a permanent and close social organization of a relatively large group of individuals, grouped into one or more neighbouring permanent villages, around a patriarchal head, or tribal chief. The tribal chief�s authority is exercised autocratically and always in top-down fashion. Although provision is made to allow for consultation with tribe members, usually elders, this occurs in a ceremonial manner only and the making of decisions is exclusively left to the chief. Once made, such decisions are never challenged. Only in rare cases are a chief ousted by his community, and in most cases, succession is by familial lineage. Traditional black culture has generally produced people that are used to function within a more stable, steady and gregarious environment. The more permanent form of existence has brought with it a culture that values the accumulation and ownership of material wealth (capital). The keeping and expansion of large herds of cattle is an example.

Likewise, the San's culture is also shaped by the requirements of their unique lifestyle. Its main characteristic is a highly non-hierarchical, flexible and loose social organization, to accommodate the highly nomadic nature of their existence. Depending on the rainfall and its distribution, groups constantly migrate to areas of good browsing and grazing where water is available and where the best game concentrations are to be found. In times of drought, a small social group is optimal for survival; in times of plenty, larger social groups are optimal. The social organization allows for the regular moving around, breaking up, and reforming of groups of people. San culture has consequently produced people who are used to a non-gregarious, individualistic and nomadic lifestyle. Other cultures, for example, find strange the apparent ease with which a San group would split at the first signs of friction developing between any of the members of the group. The same applies to the manner in which San would immediately abandon a settlement and move to a new site when one of the members of a group dies. The need to �travel light� strongly shapes the San�s values in respect of material ownership. Ownership of a dwelling, for example, does not serve as a symbol of wealth or success as dwellings serve a temporary purpose, are minimalist and constructed with the minimum expenditure of energy. Likewise, an absolute minimum of household furniture and utensils, clothing, tools and musical instruments are owned. The general scarcity of food and water in semi-desert conditions and the difficulty of keeping and moving animal stocks have made the San completely non-pastoral. In particular, the concept of �building capital�, through the breeding and owning of animal stock such as cattle, is foreign to them. In many respects, the San�s value system is therefore diametrically opposed to that of the Bantu.

As southern African countries have become independent from the early sixties onwards, following the period of colonization, and as governments were taken over by black majorities, the new governments increasingly tended towards suppression of the San and other hunter-gatherer groups.

The above accusation of race discrimination is always vehemently denied, however. The governments of Angola, Botswana and Namibia (the countries where almost all of the remaining San are to be found) are all adopting policies, which on the surface may appear to be enlightened, but are in effect nothing more than smoke screens to cover up an agenda of land grabbing, neglect of, and discrimination against the San. These governments' standard line of argument is that it is unable to provide basic services such as water supplies, medical services and schooling to people that live far away in the bush, particularly when nomadic. They therefore have to be moved to a central location, where the services can be supplied more easily. In moving the San, their cultural values are never considered and they are never fully compensated for the land that they had previously occupied as hunter-gatherers. Naturally, all this militates against and destroys the traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyle that has through thousands of years, been characteristic of life in southern Africa.

It is analogous to capturing animals in the wild, placing them into cages in a zoo and then feeding them good food and clean water (whilst commencing with large scale farming of the land that becomes available), for their own good.

The same applies to the now-rarely occurring non-San hunter-gatherers of southern Africa, such as the Otjhimba of Kaokoland in Namibia.

Jaganabe and Bashealego Ramaika, two of the 11 Basarwa individuals still living in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. The photos were taken at Kukamma on 13th December 2006, the day on which judgment was given in the Botswana High Court at Lobatse, confirming their right of occupation of the Park. Despite this explicit court judgment, the Botswana government officials are continuing to harass the occupants in every conceivable manner, pressurizing them to move to a concentration settlement camp at Kaudwane, outside the Park.

The current status of San and other hunter-gatherers in southern Africa

The estimated numbers of San currently living in the various countries in southern Africa are as follows:

Today there are virtually no true hunter-gatherers remaining in southern Africa, who rely on hunting and gathering as the sole means of obtaining food. However, a significant number still substantially (between ⅓ - ½ of their total income) rely on hunting and gathering. They occur mainly in Botswana, Namibia, Angola, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Tanzania. (Hunting includes fishing using traditional methods, and gathering includes the collection of wild bee honey). Information on the number of San still substantially practicing a hunter-gatherer lifestyle are difficult to come by, since hunter-gatherer San only occur in the remotest and most inaccessible parts. In addition, hunter-gathering is often kept secret, to protect food sources and to avoid arrest, where it is practiced illegally, and considered as poaching. From visits by the author to many of the San and other hunter-gatherer communities in Angola, Botswana and Namibia, it appears that not more than about 20% of the total San population still substantially rely on hunting and gathering.

The increasing exposure of the San to modernity is, as is to be expected, drawing them to all the conveniences associated with post-industrial societies. Perhaps more than anything else, schooling for their children is now a priority, for they fully realize the benefits of a proper education and training, in a modern world. Other modern attractions include medical and other services such as the availability of potable water and electricity and employment opportunities offering a regular income. The above attractions have no doubt contributed to a decline in the number of San who continue practicing a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and it is reasonable to expect that as time goes by, they will become completely absorbed into modern society.

Nevertheless, the hunting-gathering traditions are still deeply ingrained in the San psyche and culture, and it is almost certain that the number of practicing hunter-gatherers would have been much higher today, had they not been pushed off their traditional hunting grounds. This is fully illustrated by the fight that the San of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve are currently putting up against the Botswana government to protect their traditional hunting-gathering lifestyle. The author estimates that, if conditions that are more favourable were created for them, the percentage of San practicing hunting-gathering would easily double, to 40%. That would amount to a not-insignificant number of 40 000 individuals, in total. Furthermore, the rate of decline in the number of practicing hunter-gatherers, in time, would slow down significantly. At present, under current conditions, the number is expected to dwindle to zero within the next 20 years. With a more favourable dispensation for the San, the point of extinction of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle can most likely be extended to a period of 50 years and more.

The following are examples of where the few remaining hunter-gatherer San find themselves in a precarious state because of unwise and misguided governmental policies:

Top left: !Kung woman with child from Cacula, Huila Province, Angola. Top right: Jo//hoansi hunters from Tsumkwe, Namibia. Bottom left: Hadzabe men from Tanzania. Bottom right: ≠Kx’au-//ein hunters from Aha Hills, Botswana

As already mentioned, the South Africa situation is the exception - the government has recently set aside land in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (previously known as the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park) for the San occurring in the southern Kalahari, suitable for continuance of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle should they so wish. Note, though, that the actual number of people that are affected in this instance is very small. Nevertheless, it is the idea that counts.

The number of non-San hunter-gatherers who rely substantially on hunting and gathering for their survival is extremely small:

There undoubtedly must be other isolated groups, which survive on hunting and gathering, but the numbers involved cannot be high.

What makes the San and other hunter-gatherers, unique?

The following makes the San and other (non-San) hunter-gatherers unique in Africa:

Why should a special effort be made to protect the lifestyle of the San and other hunter-gatherers?

A question of principle that first needs answering before considering policies of special protection for the San and other hunter-gatherers, is the following: why should a special privilege be extended to them, over and above that normally afforded all other citizens of the country? According to the laws of most countries, all citizens should receive equal treatment. (The question is even more relevant in countries where widespread poverty occurs and where citizens are more often than not heavily dependent on government assistance for their day-to-day survival). By granting any individual, or group, special privileges in effect amounts to taking away privileges from other citizens, to which they are entitled.

Another important question of principle that arises, is whether the singling out of one racial group (such as the San), for special privileges, would not in itself amount to racism? Would some form of official racial classification not necessarily underlie such a policy?

The answer to the first question of principle is that, as indicated above, the San and other hunter-gatherers are unique and distinct from all other minorities in respect of their complete dependence on expansive lands where game still roams and where the indigenous vegetation is undisturbed. No other group has the same unique requirement for its survival. For that reason alone the making available of and reservation of suitable lands exclusively for hunter-gatherers is essential for their survival.

The answer to the second question of principle is that the definition for the singling out of the target group should be defined in terms of their characteristics as hunter-gatherers, rather than in terms of race. In terms of this definition, San who do not practice the hunter-gatherer lifestyle anymore will (rightly) be excluded, of course.

(A clear distinction should be made here between the interests of practicing and non-practicing hunter-gatherer San. Their interests are widely divergent. Nowhere in the wide field of minority rights locally and internationally is this clear distinction made. Non-hunter-gatherers, for example, are concerned with matters such as the making available of agricultural land, housing, vocational training, employment opportunities, schooling and the provision of social services such as water, medical and electricity. Hunter-gatherers, on the other hand, are much more concerned with securing their lands, together with the fauna and flora thereon, and to be allowed to continue their traditional lifestyle. Currently, none of the NGO’s purportedly serving the interest of the San, for example, makes this clear distinction in terms of the divergent needs of the two sections).

The main reason for the need to protect the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is the uniqueness thereof, as already described above. It forms a unique part of Africa’s rich cultural and natural heritage. It needs protection in the same way that Africa’s game populations need protection. What would Africa have been today, without its National Parks? The same applies in respect of the hunter-gatherers of southern Africa.

A secondary but important reason is that, if the proper protection of the hunter-gatherer population of southern Africa can be effected in a more acceptable way, this would definitely stimulate tourism to the area. There is a worldwide interest in the San and other hunter-gatherers, due to their unique qualities. (The best proof of this is to type in “Bushman” or “Hunter- gatherer” in Google’s search engine on the Internet – it will spit out more than 4 000 000 links!). This would contribute towards the economy of the country concerned, thus justifying the special privilege extended to hunter gathers by making available special land on which they can practice their lifestyle. At present, the pressure that hunter-gatherer communities are placed under discourages this potential tourism market from developing.

Proposals for an Alternative Approach

The approach is proposed specifically to address the issue of the protection of the traditional lifestyle of the hunter-gatherers of southern Africa. It is not intended to replace existing efforts to entrench and safeguard the rights of minorities in general, but specifically addresses the unique requirements of the hunter-gatherers.

For the purpose, the following definition is proposed: a hunter-gatherer is any citizen (including dependents) who:

in addition, who substantially (contributing equivalently more than ½ to the person’s total income per any calendar month) relies on one or more of the following methods of obtaining his/her food:

A San member from the Jo//hoansi tribe of Makuripan near Tsumkwe,
Namibia setting a snare for the catching of guinea fowl.

It is proposed that the governments concerned hold a special national census, in which only people wishing their traditional hunter-gatherer status to be recognized officially, take part. (The cost of such a census would be relatively small, since it would involve at most 1% of the population).

The census should be preceded by a thorough information campaign in all areas where hunter-gatherers are likely to be found, making known the purpose, and explaining the modus operandi, of the census.

The purpose of the census should be to establish accurately the numbers, and demographic distributions, of hunter-gatherers.

It is proposed that an official register then be opened and maintained by each government concerned. Individuals wishing their status as hunter-gatherers to be officially recognized should be invited to apply for registration. For registration purposes, the names of dependents should be included. Any person wishing to register or de-register, should be allowed to do so whenever he wishes to do so, but with the clear understanding that he/she immediately loses his/her status and the special privileges that goes with it once he/she de-registers. Registration should be voluntary.

Applications should be considered and approved subject to compliance with the requirements as contained in the official definition of hunter-gatherer.

Areas of sufficient size and suitable for the survival of hunter-gatherers should be identified and set aside, to accommodate the registered hunter-gatherers. Such areas should not contain livestock of any kind, should contain sufficient game for hunting purposes, and the flora should still be relatively pristine. National Parks, Reserves and/or sections thereof should be included for the purpose, if necessary. The areas identified should be given official status. Specific areas that should be considered include the following:

A governing body should be set up to administer the scheme. Its tasks should include the approval of new applicants and the maintenance of the register, controlling access to the hunter-gatherer designated areas and ensuring compliance with the conditions of entry into the designated areas by occupants. The governing body should ensure that the scheme is regulated in a manner that ensures the continued protection of the fauna and flora of the Parks. It should also see that the introduction of the hunter-gatherers does not detract from existing tourism. It should rather serve to promote tourism. Careful consideration would have to be given to ensure that the behaviour of the game in the Parks are not deleteriously affected, especially in respect of its affect on tourists visiting the Parks for game viewing purposes. Certain aspects of the government body could be devolved to the existing administrators of the Parks, where applicable.

No social services such as the provision of potable water, electricity, roads, medical, schooling etc. should be provided to the hunter-gatherers in the designated areas. However, hunter-gatherers wishing to make use of such services should not be prevented from doing so, as long as it is provided outside the designated area. Hunter-gatherers should not be allowed any activities in the designated area, that would serve to contradict their status as hunter-gatherers as defined above.

Because of the near-extinct status of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, the proposed scheme should be urgently introduced, with a minimum of delay.

The above provides a broad framework for the proposed scheme; the details of which will have to be fleshed out, naturally.

Conclusion

A practical scheme to address the problems associated with the issue of the protection of the land and other rights of hunter-gatherers is proposed here. If implemented timeously, it can prevent a unique lifestyle from becoming extinct and can secure a future for the last remaining hunter-gatherers of southern Africa. The unique land rights of an extreme minority would thus also be restored.

This will also contribute to an increase in tourism to the area and will generally improve perceptions worldwide vis-à-vis the southern African states’ ability to show leadership in the areas of democratic government and protection of minority rights.

What over the years has become a ball-and-chain around the ankles of the governments concerned can thus be converted to an opportunity. It is hoped that they will recognize the strategic rewards that are offered them politically, if they can bring about the necessary change.

It is recommended that the relevant NGO’s involved in minority rights issues in southern Africa, such as WIMSA (Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa) and the UN’s Commission on Human Rights, also consider the proposals outlined here for incorporation into their own promotional and action programmes, where applicable.

Criticism of Southern African Governments on their Handling of Hunter-Gatherer Minorities, in Particular the San (Bushmen), and Proposals for an Alternative Approach