by Ernst Roets
We cannot (and should not) conclude that farm attacks are generally motivated by racial or political factors or by labour-related issues, as there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim. The point at issue will, however, be made clear in the chapters that follow that South Africa has been suffering from a culture of violence for some time. There also exists a political climate in which violence towards white people in general – but white or Afrikaner farmers in particular – has been romanticised and encouraged from public platforms for several decades. To argue that all farm murders are motivated by racial or political factors would be inaccurate. It would, however, be equally inaccurate to suggest that the political climate that exists in South Africa today is irrelevant when it comes to the safety of South Africa’s food producers.
ATTEMPTS TO FIND THE THIRD FORCE
When he was in charge of rural safety within the South African Police Service (SAPS) Johan Burger, senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), investigated all the clues that came to his attention regarding claims of a third force or an underground movement responsible for farm attacks. According to Burger, there were several incidents during his time in the SAPS where press coverage was given to claims that proof had been found to this effect, especially around 2000 and 2001. All the claims that he was aware of turned out to be false. These included:
Claims of a report that proved that farm murders were the result of political interference. The report in question was, however, misinterpreted, and it turned out only to be a report about the history of South Africa.
An alleged training video on how to commit farm murders, which the claimant was not able to provide.
Documentary proof that was alleged to have been swept under the carpet by the SAPS, which turned out to be a business card and a piece of wool and string found in an attacker’s pocket.
Claims regarding the organising of farm murders by the Landless People’s Movement (LPM). The LPM turned out to be a paper tiger with no political impact or structures. While the LPM may be described as a paper tiger, there have been cases of LPM involvement in the disruption of farming activities. In the early 2000s, for example, the LPM initiated a protest on a farm in Newcastle, intimidating the farmers and threatening them with violence. These riots were said to have inflicted irreparable damage to the once good relationship that the local farmers had had with the local Zulu community for more than a hundred years.20
Claims to this effect by an unknown organisation called Black Jack. It was alleged that they had offered to pay R10 000 for every farmer who was murdered. The SAPS investigation found that the story had been made up by a farm worker who had hoped that he would be rewarded with money by his employer for coming up with this story.21
Burger, however, believes that the situation has changed drastically since 2003 and that a new study on the motive behind farm murders may reach a different conclusion. ‘The situation has changed dramatically, politically and otherwise. There are many more political statements. Think of Julius Malema and his party, threats of land grabs, the issue of land reform.’
Burger also agrees that there may be periodic increases between incidents of hate speech and farm murders and that there can be multiple motives or facilitating factors to crime, implying that a perpetrator can have more than one motive to commit a crime. He believes that the motive in the majority of cases is robbery, but agrees that there can be facilitating factors, such as the fact that the victim belongs to a particular cultural or ethnical community, or influence by political leaders. ‘It’s difficult to interpret political influence as a motive,’ says Burger, who argues that such elements should in most cases rather be interpreted as an encouragement, sub-motive or facilitating factor to commit the crime.22
He agrees, however, that there are cases where the crime was undoubtedly motivated by pure racial hatred. ‘That, however, doesn’t define farm attacks for me. At this stage, cases like that are the exception.’23
There have been reported cases of organised syndicates committing farm attacks, though. A syndicate in the Tzaneen area of Limpopo that was tracked down by Crime Intelligence was presumed to have been responsible for many farm attacks in the area. Five suspects aged between 24 and 54 were arrested. Fourteen rifles, two pistols and 318 bullets were confiscated.24
POLITICAL CLIMATE
It is hard to make any broad conclusion regarding the underlying motive on farm murders, as the issue is a complex one. Any generalised conclusion can easily be shot down, based on available evidence that proves otherwise. The available research on the matter was conducted more than a decade ago and there are sufficient reasons to be sceptical of the finding that 89,3% of farm attacks are simply motivated by the intention to steal.
The question of motive has not been scrutinised sufficiently. And while it should be noted that in the vast majority of farm attacks the attackers have stated that they were primarily motivated by the intention to rob or steal, other factors such as the possibility of multiple motives, the culture of violence in South Africa, political scapegoating of white farmers, hate speech, land reform, labour disputes, racism and political agendas should not be dismissed outright.
What is however a very serious matter – and one that is often underplayed – is the political climate that is actively created in South Africa by political leaders that actively and continuously vilify white farmers in particular and even go as far as romanticising violence against them. The South African government’s unconcerned attitude regarding farm murders should be seen within the context of a governing party that is prepared to go to court to protect their so-called right to sing songs in which the murder of white farmers is encouraged, even if only in the lyrics.
This matter will be dealt with in the chapters to follow.
When three farm attackers were spotted by a security camera on a farm near Sannieshof in 2015, one of the attackers could clearly be seen carrying a military-type signal jammer on his back.
‘I said to them that there was a safe in the bedroom. They asked me for the combination. I never use the safe and I didn’t know the combination. I asked them to put in my birthday. It didn’t work. They stabbed me again. I just knew it was a knife, but I later found out that it had been one of our steak knives from the kitchen. I really couldn’t remember the combination, but I tried to. I then asked them to put in Susan’s birthday. It worked. But there wasn’t any money in the safe. At least, I don’t think so. They then took me back to the lounge.’
PART 2
ZEITGEIST
CHAPTER 9
Swords, shields and spears
Recent South African history is swamped with examples in which white people, but white and Afrikaner farmers in particular, are condemned and blamed for what is wrong with this country – sometimes literally for everything that is wrong with the country. It goes further than criticising or slamming white and Afrikaner farmers. There are in fact many cases in which violence towards this community is actively encouraged, especially by leaders within the African National Congress (ANC) and lately also by other, newly-established revolutionary or so-called progressive groups. This will be dealt with in the chapters to follow.
In the turmoil that is South African politics, one factor is indisputably plain as a pikestaff: history.
This is of course not a history book, but a discussion on farm murders would be incomplete without at least a brief overview of the history of conflict and landownership in what is today known as the state of South Africa. Note that South Africa has a very complex history and that no attempt to reduce South Africa’s history to one or two chapters would do it justice. The focus of the following two chapters is, however, to highlight certain historical events, with the emphasis on the history of the acquisition of land, agriculture and race relations in South Africa.
THE FIRST HUMANS
The question of the origin of humankind is very relevant to the question of landownership in South Africa. Belief about the origin
of humankind is largely determined by religion. Eighty-six per cent of people in South Africa regard themselves as Christian, followed by 5,4% who hold ancestral, tribal or other traditional African beliefs. More than 5% have no religion or are uncertain as to what their religion is.1
Given that these three views make up 97% of the religious views held by people in South Africa,2 I will provide a brief overview of the major theories regarding the origins of humankind, as purported by people who share these views. This is relevant to the context of this book, because all three provide particular responses to the question of who can claim rightful ownership of land in South Africa. I shall start with the traditional belief.
When the well-known Zulu sangoma (English: traditional healer)and folklore author Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa wrote Indaba, my Children3 in 1963, it was soon referred to as one of the most iconic African books ever written.4 In it, he tells the mythological story of the creation of the earth and the first humans, as told in the Zulu tradition. According to The sacred story of the tree of life, the Great Mother Ma created the stars, the sun and ‘the body on which we stand’.5 When Ma had finished creating the stars, sun and earth, she sat on the Mountain of Iron, Taba-Zambi (a reference to the iron mines of Thabazimbi in Limpopo), awaiting the Great Spirit’s further instructions. However, she became lonely and wept most bitterly, causing the stars to tremble and fall from the sky. Her tears flowed into a great lake at her feet, flowed across the land in all directions, ‘forming murmuring streams and the mighty rivers we see today.’6
The Great Spirit provided her with a partner. ‘He shall bring contentment to you and both you and he will bring forth life upon the earth,’ said the Spirit.7 To the Goddess Ma’s discontent, the Spirit did not send a man, but the Tree of Life to mate with her. ‘Aieeee,’ shrieked Ma – ‘it cannot be!’ upon feeling the tree’s rock-studded mouth bruising her silvery lips with a savage kiss. ‘Release me, you ugly, most monstrous thing!’ ‘Release you, while I’ve only just caught you!’ replied the tree. ‘You, my heart’s desire! I did not catch you only to release you!’8
After the tree had had his way with her, the Goddess fled through the bleak barren wastelands ‘which in future years became known to mortals as Ka-Lahari’ (a reference to the Kalahari desert of Southern Africa) and through the waters of lake Makarikari, only to be caught again.9. The tree held her tightly, never to let her escape again.10 After fifty agonising years of pain and suffering, the Goddess Ma was able to free herself from the tree’s embrace. At long last, she was relieved from her pain:
And the first mighty nation of flesh and blood,
A countless number of human beings, was born.
And in their multitudes they spread
To populate the barren Ka-Lahari.11
The Tree of Life bore living, snarling, howling animal fruit in the millions and from a great crack in the trunk of the tree, birds of all kinds came flying and waddling forth. From its roots came reptiles of all kinds and shapes and cloud after cloud of all sorts of insects.12
The Song of Life had begun on earth-
The Song which is still being sung,
But which one day may trail off into oblivion-
Leaving at most the faintest echo.
History’s sun had risen, and still shines today.
But it will no doubt set one day-fore’er!13
The Biblical view teaches that the earth was created by God in six days. Humankind was created on the sixth day, to God’s image.14 According to the book of Genesis, the first man, Adam, was created from dust. God then took one of his ribs, from which the first woman, Eve, was fashioned.15 Adam and Eve were put in the Garden of Eden, a garden that was planted by God ‘in the East’.16 They were instructed to: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and master it. Take charge of the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and everything crawling on the ground.’17
God continued: ‘I now give to you all the plants on the earth that yield seeds and all the trees whose fruit produces its seeds within it. These will be your food.’18
The book of Genesis goes on to tell of how Adam and Eve were deceived by the snake to eat from the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, despite God’s instruction not to do so. Adam and Eve were then banished from the Garden of Eden by God, after God said to Adam:
[C]ursed is the fertile land because of you; in pain you will eat from it every day of your life. Weeds and thistles will grow for you, even as you eat the field’s plants; by the sweat of your face you will eat bread – until you return to the fertile land, since from it you were taken; you are soil, to the soil you will return.19
Later, when ‘all people on the earth’ built a big tower in the land of Shinar to ensure that they did not disperse across the earth, God said: ‘There is now one people and they all have one language … Come, let’s go down and mix up their language there so they will not understand each other’s language.’ They were then dispersed from there across the earth.20
Of course, there are many Christians who believe that the Old Testament, and the book of Genesis in particular, should be read for its religious value and not as a strict historical account of events. A more secular view of the origin of humankind is based on scientific discoveries. While controversial to many Christians, a more scientific approach with regard to history is supported by the majority of Christians.21
Historians believe that the first human-like species and the first humans appeared between four to two million years ago in eastern and southern Africa.22 The recent discovery of a human jawbone, believed to be 2,8 million years old, in Ethiopia has led palaeontologists to regard the parallel origins theory as a distinct possibility. According to the parallel origins theory, humankind developed in Ethiopia and South Africa. This theory is of course also based on the discovery of Australopithecus sediba. These skeletons are believed to be 1,9 million years old.23
The Australopithecus sediba (English: southern apes) is said to have been prehuman apes that lived between 4,5 and 1,5 million years ago in eastern and southern Africa.24 The fossilised bones of 15 bodies from a human-like species were recently unearthed from a site near Johannesburg that is known to the world as the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site.25
The first actual humans of whom fossil remains were found were Homo habilis, who is said to have lived between 2,2 million and 1,8 million years ago in eastern and southern Africa. They were simple hunters and gatherers of veld foods, but were physically and intellectually capable of developing and utilising stone tools.26 Scientists have discovered fossilised skeleton parts of the Australopithecus sediba, as well as stone tools of Homo habilis at the World Heritage sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans and Kromdraai.27
Many of the tools of the Homo erectus people of the Early Stone Age were also found in South Africa, particularly along the southern coast and near the Orange and Vaal Rivers.28
Homo sapiens is said to have lived between 500 000 and 100 000 years ago, spread across Africa, southern Europe and Asia. These people are believed to have been physically, intellectually and in many other ways similar to the modern human.29 The more recent so-called Homo sapiens sapiens lived between 150 000 and 100 000 years ago, writes historian Fransjohan Pretorius. They were physically and intellectually similar to modern humans. Homo sapiens sapiens gradually spread to the Americas, Australia and Tasmania.30
The dominant model of the geographical origin and early migration of modern humans consequently proposes that all humans are to a certain extent Africans. The model continues that modern humans started to disperse through the world roughly 50 000 to 100 000 years ago. This theory is also known as the ‘Out of Africa’ theory, as indicated in Map 4.31
During the Later Stone Age in South Africa, which is said to have lasted from about 20 000 years ago until about 200 years ago, nomadic, specialised hunters and gatherers lived in South Africa, using a variety of specialised stone tools for various purposes. These people were the forefathers of the Khoisan, accordi
ng to Pretorius.32
RETURNING TO SOUTH AFRICA
Between the 6th and 16th centuries, a gradual southward migration of black tribes started occurring.33 This coincided with the European Age of Discovery that occurred between the end of the 15th century and the 18th century. By 1488, Bartolomeu Dias managed to round the Cape of Good Hope and enter the Indian Ocean. His successor, Vasco da Gama, completed the quest for a sea route to India by a voyage around the Cape of Good Hope to Calicut by 1498. Once routes to the East Indies and to America had been established, exploration occurred at a quicker pace, which essentially implied ‘filling in the gaps of the known’.34 This process was continued actively during the 1500s, primarily through the efforts of the Spanish and the Portuguese.35
More or less at the same time when so-called white people were ‘returning to South Africa’ by ship from their 50 000 years of wanderings, black tribes from the northern parts of Africa started returning on foot.36 Black tribes trekked in four main groups: the Nguni, the Sotho, the Tsonga and the Venda.37 (These tribes are often referred to as the Bantu tribes of South Africa. The term Bantu means people. While the word is frequently used in historical sense, it is regarded by some as a derogatory term when used in a political context.) The Southern Nguni had reached the Mzimvubu River in the Eastern Cape more or less by the year 1600. This group included the Mpondo, Mpondomise, Thembu and Xhosa.38According to legend, the Ndebele tribes had settled in what is today known as Gauteng, Mpumalanga and Limpopo between the 17th and the 19th centuries.39