It was fascinating to spend a bit of time with a Bushmen family in the Kalahari recently.
The Bushmen (sometime also known as the San) of southern Africa’s drylands belong to the Khoisan group, the original hunter-gatherer inhabitants of much of Africa, who have been displaced from most of their traditional range by later arrivals, peoples with new technologies and lifestyles.
Recently, their way of life here has been threatened by a Government relocation policy, with some claiming that this has been spurred by the need to clear the way for profitable diamond mining and tourism interests.
Wikipedia has this to say:
‘Since the mid-1990s, the central government of Botswana has implemented a relocation policy, aimed at moving the Bushmen out of their ancestral land on and near the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) into newly created settlements, such as New Xade. The government's official reason for adopting the policy is as follows:
"Over time it has become clear that many residents of the CKGR already were or wished to become settled agriculturists, raising crops and tending livestock as opposed to hunting-gathering when the reserve was established in 1961
"In fact, hunting-gathering had become obsolete to sustain their living conditions. These agricultural land uses are not compatible with preserving wildlife resources and not sustainable to be practiced in the Game Reserve.
"This is the fundamental reason for government to relocate the CKGR residents."
The government has also explicitly denied that any of the relocation was forced. The official website states:
"Government's policy has at all times been based upon the consent of those concerned, at no time has government contemplated the use of force."
However, a 2006 court ruling confirmed that residents had been forcibly and unconstitutionally removed.’
I think it is fair to say that the Botswana Government has, on the whole, done an honorable job of looking after its citizens, spending its diamond and tourism cash far more wisely than has been the case across most of sub-Saharan Africa.
But it is also true that indigenous peoples around the world (think Native American, or the Aborigines of Australia) have suffered at the hands of their new political masters.
One thing that particularly struck me on my recent visit concerned hunting. Botswana used to be a well-known tourist hunting (love the ambiguity…) destination but has recently banned all forms of hunting. Which applies equally to the Bushmen. I was told that, in certain areas, Bushmen can apply for a license to hunt small game such as springhares and porcupines, so they can demonstrate their survival skills to tourists.
When asked about this policy my guide responded: ‘Sure, hunting is banned, so of course that must apply to Bushmen too. Otherwise it would be unfair.’
But: what happens to a hunter-gatherer when he can no longer hunt?
On a rest break while walking through the bush, my bushmen hosts were astounded to hear that Tanzania has recently passed a law granting the Hadza (Tanzania’s very own ‘bushmen’) title to their own land. On this land, they are entirely free to live as they always have, by hunting and gathering – this provoked a gasp of amazement and a burst of animated talk. Finally, my translator: ‘They are very lucky, these Hadza.’
I can’t help wishing that the Bushmen had a similar deal: a piece of land to call their own, with full rights to live a traditional life. Surely we can make a special exception for these amazing people, who until recently eked a living from an exceptionally harsh environment in a truly sustainable way?
Deep down, I’m sure the government’s claims are mostly right: that most bushmen WANT to live as agro-pastoralists; they WANT access to healthcare, education and clean water from a tap, they WANT to take their place in Botswana's economy and society; even so, there must be a few who want to live as their forefathers did.
Is that so very much to ask?
.jpg)
