Bushmen of the Kalahari
Tymphaios
February 28, 2009
Human endurance marks humanity as much as intelligence. It is as much responsible for the emergence of humans as our cognitive skills. In the history of evolution, vertebrates developed the ability to store memories in their brains. Our ancestors in Africa for the first time combined human endurance with the storing of memories into a new tool for survival: they developed a skill to track prey from signs on the ground and on the vegetation, signs of animals´ hooves, hair caught in the shrubs together with an understanding of the animal´s living habits. It did not matter whether the prey could outrun the humans. As long as the humans persisted in their pursuit, a herbivore that needs to graze for hours to obtain the nutrients that would allow it to survive, would eventually deplete its muscle stores of glycogen and collapse from the chase. Evidence that humans used this form of hunting is known from the lifestyle of a surviving African tribe: the Bushmen of the Kalahari. Living in small communities, in an arid environment where agriculture is impossible and where there are no rich pastures for herds of domesticated animals, the Bushmen can only keep a few hardy goats. They have to supplement their meagre resources with hunting in the vast Kalahari desert. They have done this perhaps for 30,000 years and it is the proof physiological anthropologists can provide on why humans have developed such a prodigious endurance. A hunt for the Bushmen can last for several hours in the shearing Kalahari desert heat. Failure may mean death for the tired and thirsty hunter. The survival of his family also depends on his skill and endurance.
"When we hunt we are dancing and when the rain comes it fills us with joy. This is our place and everything here gives life.
We are chased off our land… This is done to us because we are Bushman people. Who are they who want to chase me from life?"
These were the words of Mogetse Kabikanyo, a Bushman who was forcibly relocated in 2002 to a camp outside the Kalahari. He died just four months later. His wife said his heart stopped beating.
The remaining Bushmen have been removed by the Botswana government from their lands in the Kalahari. The motive is allegedly to modernise them. One fact is that the Botswana government has started giving mining companies prospecting rights on the diamond-rich Kalahari. Whatever the real intention, the Bushmen, forcibly torn from their land took the Botswana government to court. In the process many of their leaders were arrested and beaten.
The Bushmen argued that like other indigenous people they are closely bound to their collective land. It is used for hunting, for material to built their houses, for spiritual and recreational uses as well as being their home. Almost always traditional land belongs to the entire tribe but sections are under the guardianship of individuals, families or clans. The land is part of one´s identity, as much as his family and clan. To lose the traditional land is to lose one´s identity as well as one´s means of living. Driven from their lands, indigenous people succumb to diseases, alcoholism and depression that very often leads to suicide.
In 2006 the Bushmen won with the help of Survival International an historic legal victory when Botswana´s High Court ruled that their eviction was ´unlawful and unconstitutional´. The Botswana government has persisted with its persecution of the tribe regardless. Since 2006 more than 50 Bushmen have been arrested for hunting to feed their families, and the government has banned the Bushmen from using their water borehole. They have been stopped from taking their small herds back to the reserve. Hundreds of Bushmen still languish in resettlement camps, unable or too scared to return home.
Since 2007 these practices of the Botswana government are foul of a new decision by the United Nations. To address some of the special needs of indigenous peoples the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has worked for several decades on a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The Draft Declaration contained an important principle regarding collective rights:
"Indigenous peoples have the right to determine priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands, territories and other resources, including the right to require that States obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands, territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. Pursuant to agreement with the indigenous peoples concerned, just and fair compensation shall be provided for any such activities and measures taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social or spiritual impact."
The UN Decade of Indigenous people that ended in 2004 failed to ensure the recognition of this declaration. Botswana was one of two African countries that raised objections to its adoption. Surprisingly, the UK and US governments had also participated in a campaign to block the recognition of collective rights. The UK was not only stalling agreement of the UN's draft declaration on indigenous peoples but along with a handful of other countries was also denying that indigenous peoples' collective rights have the same status as other human rights.
The British government argued that acknowledging indigenous peoples' collective rights would undermine the notion that all people should be treated equally. Equality, however, does not require all individuals to be treated the same. On the contrary it is recognised that certain individuals and groups need special protections to ensure that they are treated fairly. Such groups have had their rights recognized. For example, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child were ratified by the United Nations. By nature of being men or adults, the rights of those excluded from these groups are not endangered.
It was suggested that the recognition of group rights in the declaration would enable states to 'pick and choose' which rights to respect for which groups. The British government suggested that this would increase the vulnerability of individuals and peoples to 'abusive governments'. This, however, would depend on the wording of the declaration and "abusive governments" in any case do not require permission from the United Nations to find ways to abuse the rights of their people. The British government claimed to have been 'working with' indigenous organisations on the declaration, but actually indigenous peoples´ organisations had written to the government to ask it to stop blocking the declaration and to stop denying them their full collective rights. There was no legal basis for the arguments against indigenous peoples' collective rights. The response from the indigenous peoples was that 'foreign people see us not as human beings, but as creatures that are still in the evolution stage.'
The United Nations agreed on a second international decade for the world´s indigenous people, which started in January 2005. Already by 2007 the Draft Declaration was adopted and this has now become the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The experience of indigenous peoples has been that the wrong law may be worse than no law. Where indigenous peoples are given individual title to land, this can lead to more rapid loss of land and make it easier to sell (Native Americans and the Massai). The South American solution has been to secure land under untransferable collective titles.
The Declaration fully recognizes that indigenous peoples' collective rights would help protect tribal peoples from abuses.
The Botswana government´s continuing discrimination against the Bushmen violates several of the articles of the Declaration. Most relevant of all the Declaration states: "Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return."
The continuing persecution of the Bushmen is clearly in breach of this and indeed of several other articles in the Declaration.
"I did not have to survive on rations when I was young. I want to go back to my land. I want to go back to the Central Kalahari because I know that land. This land is no good."
"I did not want to come here. I was refusing to come here. I was crying when I was taken away from my home. My heart is full. I want to go home. When we were relocated to New Xade, that was the time my husband died, after being evicted."
"We, the Gana people, we love our land and we will strive to get it back irrespective of what the government or other people are saying or doing to us. It is very hard, especially when fighting the government, and we know the threats."
"When we hunt we are dancing and when the rain comes it fills us with joy. This is our place and everything here gives life.
We are chased off our land… This is done to us because we are Bushman people. Who are they who want to chase me from life?"
These were the words of Mogetse Kabikanyo, a Bushman who was forcibly relocated in 2002 to a camp outside the Kalahari. He died just four months later. His wife said his heart stopped beating.
The remaining Bushmen have been removed by the Botswana government from their lands in the Kalahari. The motive is allegedly to modernise them. One fact is that the Botswana government has started giving mining companies prospecting rights on the diamond-rich Kalahari. Whatever the real intention, the Bushmen, forcibly torn from their land took the Botswana government to court. In the process many of their leaders were arrested and beaten.
The Bushmen argued that like other indigenous people they are closely bound to their collective land. It is used for hunting, for material to built their houses, for spiritual and recreational uses as well as being their home. Almost always traditional land belongs to the entire tribe but sections are under the guardianship of individuals, families or clans. The land is part of one´s identity, as much as his family and clan. To lose the traditional land is to lose one´s identity as well as one´s means of living. Driven from their lands, indigenous people succumb to diseases, alcoholism and depression that very often leads to suicide.
In 2006 the Bushmen won with the help of Survival International an historic legal victory when Botswana´s High Court ruled that their eviction was ´unlawful and unconstitutional´. The Botswana government has persisted with its persecution of the tribe regardless. Since 2006 more than 50 Bushmen have been arrested for hunting to feed their families, and the government has banned the Bushmen from using their water borehole. They have been stopped from taking their small herds back to the reserve. Hundreds of Bushmen still languish in resettlement camps, unable or too scared to return home.
Since 2007 these practices of the Botswana government are foul of a new decision by the United Nations. To address some of the special needs of indigenous peoples the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has worked for several decades on a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The Draft Declaration contained an important principle regarding collective rights:
"Indigenous peoples have the right to determine priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands, territories and other resources, including the right to require that States obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands, territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources. Pursuant to agreement with the indigenous peoples concerned, just and fair compensation shall be provided for any such activities and measures taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social or spiritual impact."
The UN Decade of Indigenous people that ended in 2004 failed to ensure the recognition of this declaration. Botswana was one of two African countries that raised objections to its adoption. Surprisingly, the UK and US governments had also participated in a campaign to block the recognition of collective rights. The UK was not only stalling agreement of the UN's draft declaration on indigenous peoples but along with a handful of other countries was also denying that indigenous peoples' collective rights have the same status as other human rights.
The British government argued that acknowledging indigenous peoples' collective rights would undermine the notion that all people should be treated equally. Equality, however, does not require all individuals to be treated the same. On the contrary it is recognised that certain individuals and groups need special protections to ensure that they are treated fairly. Such groups have had their rights recognized. For example, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child were ratified by the United Nations. By nature of being men or adults, the rights of those excluded from these groups are not endangered.
It was suggested that the recognition of group rights in the declaration would enable states to 'pick and choose' which rights to respect for which groups. The British government suggested that this would increase the vulnerability of individuals and peoples to 'abusive governments'. This, however, would depend on the wording of the declaration and "abusive governments" in any case do not require permission from the United Nations to find ways to abuse the rights of their people. The British government claimed to have been 'working with' indigenous organisations on the declaration, but actually indigenous peoples´ organisations had written to the government to ask it to stop blocking the declaration and to stop denying them their full collective rights. There was no legal basis for the arguments against indigenous peoples' collective rights. The response from the indigenous peoples was that 'foreign people see us not as human beings, but as creatures that are still in the evolution stage.'
The United Nations agreed on a second international decade for the world´s indigenous people, which started in January 2005. Already by 2007 the Draft Declaration was adopted and this has now become the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The experience of indigenous peoples has been that the wrong law may be worse than no law. Where indigenous peoples are given individual title to land, this can lead to more rapid loss of land and make it easier to sell (Native Americans and the Massai). The South American solution has been to secure land under untransferable collective titles.
The Declaration fully recognizes that indigenous peoples' collective rights would help protect tribal peoples from abuses.
The Botswana government´s continuing discrimination against the Bushmen violates several of the articles of the Declaration. Most relevant of all the Declaration states: "Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return."
The continuing persecution of the Bushmen is clearly in breach of this and indeed of several other articles in the Declaration.
"I did not have to survive on rations when I was young. I want to go back to my land. I want to go back to the Central Kalahari because I know that land. This land is no good."
"I did not want to come here. I was refusing to come here. I was crying when I was taken away from my home. My heart is full. I want to go home. When we were relocated to New Xade, that was the time my husband died, after being evicted."
"We, the Gana people, we love our land and we will strive to get it back irrespective of what the government or other people are saying or doing to us. It is very hard, especially when fighting the government, and we know the threats."
Print
Email
