The history and the present life of the San, indigenous people of the southern Africa, is a sad story of a people who after surviving genocide at the hands of other African ethnic groups and European colonialists had to endure slavery and oppression, while in the process losing their land, language, culture, and traditional way of life.

In Botswana, where there is a population of about 60,000 San people, the government refuses to recognise the San as indigenous, claiming that every Motswana is indigenous in Botswana. This self-serving argument is presented to anyone who argues that historical and archaeological evidence has proved that the San people have lived and hunted in the southern Africa for over 35,000 years.

There is no official recognition of the San people as a distinct ethnic group in Botswana, and they are excluded in the country’s house of chiefs (1). A name used to refer to the San is “Basarwa” - a demeaning word suggesting servitude. They are among the poorest, totally marginalised and landless. Title deeds and the 1968 Tribal Land Act which aimed to regulate land allocation and rights (2) left the San people with no land to call their own.

In the name of development - meaning game lodges and safari companies which results in tourists and profits for the wealthy few, the San people have been, since 1997, subjected to forced removal from The Central Kalahari Game Reserve. The game reserve was set up in 1961 while Botswana was still a British Protectorate. The idea was to put all that belonged in the bush in a game reserve; you will remember that the colonialists referred to the San as “Bushmen”.

Before 1997, there were about 3,000 San people who lived in the 52,000 square km reserve (3) and in total there were six villages (4), but today there are only about 500 San people who still live in the reserve (5). A reason given by the government for the removal of the San people is that the game reserve is not for humans rather to preserve wildlife; furthermore, the government claims that it has become too expensive to bring basic services for the San people living in the reserve, hence it is moving them to a better site 60 km away from the reserve.

When the government came up with the idea to remove the San people in 1997, it stressed the point that those who were being removed would be given a “new and modern life”, replete with better clinics, schools, financial assistance for businesses, farm plots and livestock.

The real reason behind the removal of the San people is to create a tourism industry in that country while diversifying the country’s economy at the same time. The International Monetary Fund made it clear to the Botswana government that it must pursue the diversification of its economy and move away from dependence on diamond revenues, continued government spending and expansion of the civil service (6). Diamonds account for three quarters of Botswana export earnings, one third of its GDP and 50 percent of government revenues (7). This is generated by Debswana - a company jointly owned by the government and De Beers, and is the world’s biggest uncut diamond producer in value terms.

Survival International believes that the main reason for the government to remove the San people is that the game reserve which they once considered barren houses one of the world’s richest diamond fields. And according to the United Nations news agency, IRIN, test drilling has already taken place at Gope - a location within the reserve. Clifford Maribe, assistant director of the research and information division in the Government Foreign Affairs Ministry, has been quoted as saying: “The government has made no secret that there is general exploration for minerals throughout the country, including Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR). However, at this point in time, nothing other than the Gope deposit has been found in the CKGR” (8).

Moreover, according to the Survival International, the International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank, has given credibility to the exploration by providing Kalahari Diamonds (part owned by Billiton - an Anglo-Australian multinational) with $ 2-million.

In their struggle to exist, the San’s traditional knowledge is also under threat. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research of South Africa (CSIR) patented in 1997 a plant that the San used to eat to ward off hunger and thirst on long hunting trips. According to tradition, the San did not eat while hunting and the plant helped suppress appetite. The CSIR then licensed the UK- based Phytopharm, which in turn licensed the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to develop the Hoodia cactus into a “miracle slimming drug”. It is reported that Pfizer hopes to have the “dieter’s dream” treatment in pill form by 2007. As for the San, royalties are coming their way; the mainstream media is quick to point out.

Perhaps the most revealing story of the day-to-day struggle of the San people in Botswana is an extract below, taken from a story by Saikuta, a storyteller from old Xade district that used to be in the game reserve.

“Just before the time of the year you call Christmas I went hunting and shot a gemsbok. The same day the Game Warden came around, took my hunting license, and said: don’t you see that this has expired a long time ago? And I said: but you know I can’t read. Never mind, this one is expired. So where is the animal? So I go with the Game Warden, show him the animal, and he takes it all, skin, bones, meat, horn. He takes it to feed his own family. He tells me that this time he will not fine me.

Every time I see him I ask for my new license. Take it easy, this is not the time for hunting. And I say: But this is the time when we San people go hunting. This is when the game is around. Nonsense, old man, you must wait until I tell you. This is the government game, and we decide when you are allowed to hunt.

Many, many days passed and we nearly died from hunger. My son was nearly dying from hunger. I know well enough, he belongs to the government. The government owns all of us, and we own nothing. So it was difficult for me to make this decision: should I leave the government’s son to die, or should I shoot one of the government’s elands. Which of the two had to die? So I went hunting. I shot an eland, butchered it, and went home, but the Game Warden was already there waiting for me: You shot an eland, now you must go to jail. They took me and the eland to Ghanzi district, and once we were there they started to sell the meat. And I asked: is it the meat of the eland that I shot that you are now selling? You are not allowed to sell game meat, that much I know. Now you watch yourself or you will stay in jail for so long that no one will recognize you when you come out.

So I was silent.

Then I came before the magistrate, and I told him the story as I have told you now. You are too old to hunt. You are supposed to live from the mealie meal that the government gives you, the magistrate told me. But I never received any mealie meal. Yes, your name is in the book. Go home and wait, and you will get a bag every month; the magistrate told me. Then he gave me six months suspended sentence. Now it is May, and the mealie meal has been distributed five times already, but my name is not in the book.

So now I again am faced with the same dilemma. Who should die, the eland or the son of the government.” (9)

* This article was first published on
Reprinted with kind permission of the author.

* Please send comments on this editorial - and other events in Africa -
to [email protected]

References:
1.United Nations news agency, IRIN.
2.The Inconvenient Indigenous, by Sidsel Saugestad
3.UN news agency, IRIN
4.The Inconvenient Indigenous, by Sidsel Saugestad
5.African Eye News Service
6.Business Day 25/11/99
7.Financial Times
8.UN news agency, IRIN
9.The Inconvenient Indigenous, by Sidsel Saugestad