Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:15:21.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

DOGS, POISON AND THE MEANING OF COLONIAL INTERVENTION IN THE TRANSKEI, SOUTH AFRICA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2003

JACOB TROPP
Affiliation:
Middlebury College

Abstract

In the 1890s and 1900s in the Transkei, South Africa, colonial relations were severely strained as Cape colonial officials attempted to constrain African men's hunting activities by systematically poisoning and shooting their dogs. For colonial foresters, such efforts were part of a larger strategy to ‘protect’ flora and fauna by controlling African environmental activities and mobility more thoroughly. Yet on the ground in many areas, state-sponsored dog-killing was drawn into more complex understandings of, and popular frustrations with, transformations in local landscapes and livelihoods during this period. As rural men and women responded to the particular changes in their local political ecologies arising from colonial wildlife preservation policies, they also located conflicts over state forestry and its policies of exclusion within broader popular experiences of political, economic and ecological subordination. In several communities, rumors and stories proliferated, connecting the killing of dogs to other official attempts to poison and bewitch Africans, their animals and their landscapes. Such stories were ways for people to express deeper concerns over the spreading influence of colonial power in their daily practices and its toll on local communities’ health and welfare.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Special thanks to Lwandlekazi de Klerk, Tandi Somana and Veliswa Tshabalala for assistance in interviewing and translation. Richard Waller and others on the panel at the 2000 conference of the African Studies Association in Nashville, Tennessee, at which this paper was first presented, offered stimulating comments on earlier versions of the article. I am also grateful to Thomas Spear and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful editorial suggestions. This research was supported by grants from the Joint Committee on African Studies of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies, with funds provided by the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota.