By Hadebe Hadebe
Marxists traditionally analyse colonialism and its impact using a narrow-angle on global economicsbut have generally paid little attention to how colonialists developed local economies. The problem with this approach is that it tends to group all colonial territories together as if they were the same, without distinguishing between settler colonies and extraction colonies. Of course, the broad goal of linking these territories to capitalism was similar, but there was a huge distinction when it came to places that were considered suitable for European settlement. The top places that welcomed scores of Europeans were mainly Spanish and Portuguese colonies in Latin America, some French colonies like Algeria, and English colonies such as the US, Canada, Australia, Namibia, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, and South Africa.
It is common knowledge that indigenous peoples of the Americas, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia were largely exterminated, either through violence, or forced labour, or their race was altered through miscegenation. However, in South Africa, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, the local populations were not pushed to extinction. Now, it is important to understand the nature of the relationship that existed between the colonial administrators and locals in these territories. These places hold a distinction for the depth of colonialism and the simultaneous large settlements of the natives and settler communities. This means that the depth of colonialism and its mechanisms in these countries was completely different from places which were not necessarily identified for permanent white settlements, such as Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, or even colonial India.
Colonial rule everywhere was generally enforced through ‘hard’ elements, such as economics, dispossessions, war, violence, and brute force. However, in settler colonies, there were ‘soft’ elements, such as tastes, culture, identities, language, and other practices, that were applied in tandem with the hard elements. The relationship between the soft and hard elements continues to receive the least scholarly attention to date. This prevents people to gain a deeper understanding of the notion of the economy of amadlozi, which refers to the economy driven by traditional African cultural practices and beliefs, and how it continues to sustain the white-dominated South African economy to the present day.
One aspect of colonialism that is least spoken about is how cultures were destroyed or mutilated (disfigured) to support the colonial project. In ‘Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism’, the well-known scholar Mahmood Mamdani asserts that European colonialism in Africa was particularly brutal and destructive, with devastating effects on African societies and cultures. This book further explores the ways in which African societies were transformed by the imposition of colonial rule and the legacies of colonialism that continue to shape contemporary Africa.
Similarly, this op-ed deals with how colonial rule altered African cultures and traditions to support its commercial enterprise. Certain cultures and practices were discouraged or encouraged depending on their relevance. It must be noted that pre-colonial African life existed around their livestock, and land. Authors such as Jabulani Sithole and J. A. Barnes contend that cattle, for example, were often used as a form of currency and were also an important part of social and cultural practices such as marriage and funerals.
It is then logical that colonists also “sought to acquire flocks and herds of their own to increase their personal wealth.” Evidence suggests that grazing land and livestock triggered early conflicts between Europeans and Africans in the Cape. As such, the colonial experience of the first two hundred years of European rule of the Cape “was a process of unrelenting dispossession of land from autochthonous people, a record of livestock raiding and counter-raiding, and endemic violence.” This overlap in interests placed livestock ownership at the centre of conflicts, but it also makes sense that an economy had to be created around animals. As with everything else, the colonial rule used its upper hand to impose on the lives of Africans. Settler colonial administrators utilised both soft and hard elements to entrench their rule and build the economy.
This opinion piece, therefore, aims to explore the connection between the so-called African culture, traditions, and customs (soft elements) and the colonial economy (hard elements) from its early days to the present. It must be noted that this article does not delve into spiritual issues or prescribe what individuals should or should not do. Its objective is merely to expose the linkages between African cultural practices and commercialism, as well as to showcase how this connection was and is accentuated to benefit an economy that does not include natives as potential owners but rather as an exploitable resource. After all, the adaptable nature of capitalism ensures its penetration at every level of life.
African cultural practices and the White colonial economy
Certain cultural practices and customs were twisted to support the economy in an environment that undermined anything and everything that was African. Authors David Gordon and Shepard Krech argue that “even areas of colonial power that seemed most benevolent and most prone to indigenous influences, in fact, became responsible for the suppression of local knowledge, the reordering of local livelihoods, and the entrenchment of colonial hegemony.” The deepening of the colonial rule also involved livestock ownership, whereby Africans were obliged to register dogs, cattle, and other animals for tax purposes.
Since they operated in a largely cashless economy, their livestock were confiscated. In Colonial Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia), for example, the Hut Tax Ordinance passed in 1894 led to “many cattle raids (both official and unofficial) by settlers.” Terence Ranger adds that “cattle destocking created explosive tensions between Africans and the state.”
Parallel to this, with the alienation of land to settlers, Africans were restricted to native reserves, and this ordinarily limited the number of animals held by each African family. This created trouble for Africans since the animals held a special place in their lives and systems. But the colonial authorities sought to limit ownership of stock in native reserves to fewer animals.
In addition, the interaction between Europeans and Africans brought diseases that were foreign to the continent. Historians Wesley Mwatwara and Sandra Swart explain that “in cases where African livestock regimes were unable to deal with these epizootics, Africans correctly linked such diseases with colonialism and the expansion of capitalist production.” European settlers also used fencing and trespassing laws to frustrate ownership of animals.
In the article titled ‘The Settlers’ Cattle Complex: The Etiquette of Culling Cattle in Colonial Zimbabwe, 1938’, Allison K. Shutt concluded that cattle culling in colonial Zimbabwe combined “the notions of power over people and animals.” Cattle production indeed became a primary activity for settler communities, and this industry had to be supported at all costs. South African ‘black culture’ was recreated to achieve this purpose.
Besides draconian laws, this opinion piece focuses on the ‘soft’ elements [African cultural practices] that settlers deployed to support the economy and its agricultural sector through demand and markets. In this regard, customs such as lobola and ‘go phahlela badimo’ (ancestral worship) as well as other practices like sangomas and beliefs have one thing in common, the slaughter of cattle, sheep, and goats.
Whereas the entire identity of a people was destroyed by the colonialists, African cultural practices within the context of colonialism, commercialism, and oppression are worth interrogating. At face value, African cultural practices do not seem to have been disrupted by colonialism and apartheid, and also the settler communities did not seem overly concerned about their persistence.
Bearing the above in mind, therefore, it is necessary to ask one fundamental question in this regard: Why were these practices allowed to thrive and take over our lives as they have up until this point in time?
There is no universal response to this question, but the argument is that it was not through their resilience to colonialism and apartheid. It is much more complicated than that. The main argument is that the answer to this question lies in the commercial side of these practices.
After their lands and wealth (primarily livestock) were expropriated, Africans were left to beg for a livelihood from the white settlers who were desperate to incorporate natives into their economy. That is the prowess of capitalism; it is suited to all conditions and updates itself. That is the reason it is invincible as the world’s only economic system.
Another important question to consider is: how Africans were integrated into the white economy?Such things as land and livestock were assigned artificial monetary values and black Africans were expected to purchase them even though the economy was cashless. The colonial masters recognised that certain cultural practices, such as weddings, lobola and rituals, were important for stimulating demand in a white-owned economy. These practices continue to have an impact today.
According to the Malabo Montpellier Panel, Africa is “a livestock-rich continent representing about one-third of the world’s livestock population… [and] the livestock sector accounts for about 40% of agricultural GDP in Africa.” Thus, the ground was fertile for the introduction of commercialised production which had to be promoted and protected from competition from Africans.
Commercial Agriculture and the So-calledAfrican Culture
In regions such as East and West Africa, goats are the most commonly raised animals, while cattle are concentrated in the stretch between Ethiopia and Nigeria. It is almost intriguing that South Africa currently boasts one of the largest livestock sectors on the continent, which is supported by commercialism. Animals are for consumption in local and foreign markets and their by-products like milk, hide, bones and dung are equally important. In addition to their economic importance, cattle and goats are also critical to African cultural practices, which represent a lucrative market that is often overlooked by Statistics South Africa and economists.
A single cow can fetch up to R20,000 in the market, while goats and sheep are sold for at least R1,500. Who owns livestock in South Africa today? The answer is on the wall: These animals are not in the hands of natives who have lost the skills and space to raise them.
Commercial agriculture is directly linked to the so-called African culture in more ways than one. Almost all cultural practices in Africa require the slaughter of chickens, cows, sheep, and cattle. However, pigs and chickens were not highly valued in past cultures but it is commercialism, poverty, and artificial scarcity have made these animals popular. Pigs and chickens were killed for consumption mainly by children or young people, and by families. But they did not have any prominence. To the present day, unlike in Europe,a pig (pork) has less value in the market compared to sheep (mutton) or cattle (beef) due to their lack of relevance in these engineered African customs and traditions.
Historically, cattle were highly revered and were not killed for fun. According to historian Jeff Peires, cattle provided meat and milk for people, while cowhides were used for clothing, and their dung was used as fertilizer and fuel. Bones could be fashioned into tools, and cattle were used as a central unit of value for trading.
In what is known as the African ‘cattle complex,’ cattle represented wealth and status for communities. In his book ‘The Cattle Complex in East Africa: A Study of the Ecology of East African Rangelands and the Development of the Cattle Complex and Its Integration into the Economy of the Society’, anthropologist J. S. Galaty writes that”the importance of cattle in East Africa is reflected in their roles as status symbols, bride-wealth, sacrificial animals, and in other ritual contexts. Cattle are also used as a form of currency and medium of exchange in many societies.”
Nonetheless, the rise of the white-owned economy necessitated significant changes for Africans. They were not only required as cheap labour but also as consumers and taxpayers. Wages became the primary source of income for Africans, allowing them to pay a head tax and buy consumer goods, including livestock, since they had been dispossessed most, if not all, of their belongings.
Any economy relies on the demand side to grow and be sustainable. Therefore, maintaining fake African culture, including traditions, customs, and practices, was carefully linked to the white economy through practices such as lobola, badimo/amadlozi, and weddings. Now, there is a move to celebrate Ancestors Day, which represents yet another commercial venture designed to stimulate the white economy.
This relationship was built through the commercialisation of African cultural practices to boost the agricultural sector of the economy. In fact, hyperconsumerism in black culture can be traced back to these practices. As a result, the economy flourishes during certain times of the year when demand for livestock and other consumer goods is amplified due to traditional practices, weddings, and religion. These cultural practices are also linked to religion for the same purpose. For example, animist churches such as the Shembe church and similar groups prefer the slaughter of cattle and goats.
Stop playing the blame game, apartheid ended a long time ago!
“Stop playing the blame game, apartheid ended a long time ago!” is a common retort heard in South Africa when discussing economic issues facing the black population. However, it is essential to delve deeper into the economic structures that perpetuate hardship and poverty among black communities.
With dwindling numbers of cattle and goats as a result of growing populations which need them for daily consumption, the new churches opt for hard cash (tithes). However, the principles of economics remain exactly the same. There must always be production/ supply and this needs to be matched with markets (demand).
The ‘African traditions’ prop the South African economy but no statistical figures are produced to check how much they contribute to the GDP. My estimate is that they could be worth over R700 billion per annum and account for nearly 60% of black household spending during certain periods of the year such as Easter and December holidays.
The ‘African traditions’ prop the South African economy and their importance cannot be ignored, yet statistical figures are not produced to check how much they contribute to the GDP. My estimate is that African traditions could be worth over R700 billion per annum and account for nearly 60% of black household spending during certain periods of the year, such as the Easter and December holidays.
Black consumption patterns often debunk economic reasoning and trends, especially when it comes to income levels and household size. This is due to the economy of amadlozi, which exists in the shadows of mainstream economic discussions in South Africa. The price for lobola averages between R60000 and R100000, while a wedding costs not less than R300000. The expenditure for livestock (cattle and goats) and manufactured goods like alcohol, food, and clothing that accompany traditional ceremonies often form the bulk of the costs. It is surprising that micro-economists have not studied this critical sector of the economy.
The spending alone associated with ‘African culture’ could be responsible for low savings and wastage, resulting in poverty and anguish, especially among young adults who are often expected to prioritise tradition over their lives. Young people are asked to pay exorbitant lobola fees and organise traditional ceremonies for ‘ancestors.’ It does not matter how much they earn; the demands placed on them under the guise of ‘African tradition’ are immense and unaffordable.
The link between ‘African culture’ and the mainly white-dominated South African economy is astounding. Perhaps it is the right time for national discourse to seek ways to dismantle the connection between ‘African culture’ and the economy. This debate needs to focus on minimising the costs that relate to African traditions, customs, and rituals.
Attire and the so-called African culture
South Africa needs a cultural revolution to effect changes in the economy and address many socio-economic ills. ‘African culture’ partly contributes to the sustenance of the ‘Nomahhelele nation’ – a drunken nation. Alongside the killing of beasts, excessive alcohol consumption and misconduct accompany the majority of African ceremonies, such as weddings, imisebenzi, and “after-tears”.
Therefore, a cultural revolution will not only refocus the African family in terms of rebuilding, but it will also reshape the relationship between Africans and the white economy. Unfortunately, even the dress code (traditional attire) of Basotho, BaPedi, AmaSwazi, AmaNdebele, and beyond is part of the white commercial empire spanning countries.
Cloth was a part of the British colonial conquest in India as well. Similar to Africa, weather conditions in the subcontinent permitted women to wear as little clothing as possible. In southern India, for example, “even in colonial times, some women did not cover the upper part of their body”. At best, people spun wool or cotton and made it into cloth in their own homes.
It was not until the British India Company and its merchants decided to integrate India’s textile industry into commercialised global trade that Indians exported textiles overseas and enjoyed a comparative advantage until English factories began to produce in bulk for both local and overseas markets. As Britain took control of India, the British cloth industry changed towards making cloth in factories. By the early 1800s, cloth made in British factories was cheaper than cloth made in India, and the Indian cloth industry was gradually destroyed as people acquired new tastes. Many professionals in government and industry began to conform to British dress customs.
In parallel, European colonialists were altering the dress sense of Africans and other peoples in newly acquired territories overseas. From sishweshwe to Igbo dresses, the power of European capital exerted itself. Traditional textile industries in Africa and the Middle East soon imported cloth from overseas and died, as did the Indian textile industry. Western clothing triumphed as it was often used as a tool to impose a sense of civilisation on non-Western societies.
Conclusion
The so-called traditional attire is mixed with other cultural practices to celebrate amadlozi with so much organisation and perfection. The celebration of amadlozi and attire are seamlessly intertwined with the South African economy. The commercialization of African culture has been heavily supported by synthetic cultures that gained prominence under European commercialism. The South African consumer market is now entrenched and without the backing of a captive market, large retailers like Shoprite, Woolworths, etc. have struggled in other parts of the continent. Shoprite and Woolworths bombed out of the Nigerian markets a few years ago. Life is easier in South Africa, re phahlela badimo!
It is during major public holidays that demand for goods such as groceries, clothes, and livestock surges: siyashada, siyathwasa and siya engomeni. The South African economy and the belief system of amadlozi are intrinsically linked, and it would be hard to separate them.
It is up to Africans to decide whether to re-create the economy of amadlozi to benefit themselves or let the status quo remain. If the ‘African culture’ market is so lucrative, then it makes sense for them to make it work for them. Discarding most elements of commercialism in ‘African culture’ could be one step towards a much-needed cultural revolution and modernisation in black South African culture.
At this point, the focus should be on building sustainable livelihoods and sub-economies in townships and rural areas, but assimilation into the white economy even through traditional practices. It is time to address the real issues of true political freedom and economic emancipation.
Re leboha badimo le Modimo…
Si ya yi banga le economy!