Regarding Africa

I would like to raise some minor points regarding the recent 
discussion about the relationship of indigenous peoples to the 
environment, based on what I know about South Africa.

1. Should the discussion about African (or native American) attitudes 
towards the environment not be less a-historical, non-empirical? Are 
the indigenous peoples not assumed to be too undifferentiated , as 
though all Africans and all native Americans think and act the same. 
For instance, defining the period and the groups you are talking 
about is essential , as not all Africans were nomads all the time.  

Chris' point regarding internal differences needs underscoring. 
While there are similarities between most large groups (e.g. 
Bantu-speakers) there are also differences within them. For this 
reason some commentators advise distinguishing broadly between 
West, East, Central, and Southern Africa. For example, while most 
African groups accept the existence of ancestors, the means of 
approaching them differ. The ambiguous relationship of humans to 
their environment is also reflected in the perception of uncreated 
nature spirits which exist in e.g. rivers (among the Xhosa), or in 
the notion that evil humans (witches, sorcerers) can take the form of 
certain animals (e.g. black cats). Cattle represent wealth and are 
killed to appease the ancestors, and the cattle kraal (corral) has a 
number of taboos attached as a result.  On the other hand, certain 
groups (e.g. the Venda) regard certain places e.g. those near rivers 
as sacred, i.e. as inhabited by ancestral spirits.

To return to the perception of Africans as nomads, not all 
Africans were nomads all the time. Relatively large-scale settlements 
existed in South Africa since the Iron Age. Recently the remains of a 
3 000 year old settlement was uncovered in the north-eastern parts of 
South Africa, in the present Kruger National Park. We should also not 
forget the ruins of Great Zimbabwe, which point towards relatively 
dense settlements.

2. With regards to the arguments presented by Moseley concerning 
reasons for settlement, I would add that kinship patterns, relations 
between groups, and geographical features (e.g. hilly terrain vs 
plain) provided powerful stimuli to settlement patterns. In South 
Africa, for example, dense settlement is associated with open plains 
and by implication lack of defensibility, and with exogamous marriage 
patterns. Thus the highveld witnessed early relatively large-scale 
settlement patterns. On the other hand not all the activities 
of nomads are related to the environment per se, but could also be 
more directly influenced by economic activities,  such as the 
long-distance traders of West Africa during the Middle Ages.

[On  Wed, 3 Feb 1999 19:19:46 -0800,  kpmoseley@juno.com wrote:
the very fact of their settling may reflect the fact that new 
territory is getting scarce, and it certainly stimulates increased 
fertility, intensified exploitation of resources, etc. ]

3. Finally, am I being oversensitive or is the debate pitched in 
terms of "north American indigenous vs African indigenous people" - 
like an academic version of the Worldwide Wrestling Federation? What 
happens once one side is declared the winner? Do we then glory in the 
historical "victory" of "our" indigenous peoples vs "the other"? Is 
there a subtext here in which Africa remains the savage, distanced, 
and destructive "other", as opposed to "civilized", familiar, 
eco-friendly north America ? Or in which we post-moderns are
worse/better of than traditionals? 

Surely destructive elements exist in all cultures and societies in 
all times, but no epoch has quite matched the destructive effect on 
the environment that we have achieved since the industrial 
revolution. 

Leaving aside the Flood for a moment, of course!
Dr Dawid Venter
Departement of Sociology
University of Stellenbosch
P/bag X1 Matieland 7602
Tel: (021) 808-2196
Fax: (021) 808-2134
E-mail: djv@maties.sun.ac.za