Land reform poser for SA

THE topic of land reform has become the focus of attention following President Jacob Zuma’s address to the House of Traditional Leaders, an issue examined by your columnist, Andrew Donaldson (“Pre-colonial, post-colonial: Just redraw the land map”, Weekend Argus, March 4).

This issue raises several interesting questions, apart from the fact that most of the people who were awarded land opted for the cash alternative. Among the important issues would be on what basis a new map vis a vis land occupation would be constructed – colonial records, which are documented, or oral tradition? Bearing in mind we’re talking about more than 200 years, one wonders how accurately information would have been communicated through so many generations.

Many transactions occurred between the colonisers and local inhabitants.

According to Eric Walker in A History of Southern Africa, for instance, Port Natal was purchased for 1 650. That the sale documents were lost when the ship returning to the Cape Colony was wrecked does not detract from the fact that land changed hands for cash. Will these transactions be taken into account?

Second, what point in history is envisaged as the limit of this exercise? Would it include territory taken during tribal warfare? The prime example of this is Shaka’s eruption from a “humble little tribe” whose territory encompassed a small area between the Black and White Umfolozi rivers which led to the scattering of various tribes in the eastern areas of South Africa. Mzilikazi, one of his commanders, wreaked havoc en route to what was then the Transvaal.

Will these events be taken into account? Whoever is tasked with drawing this map faces an intricate task requiring the wisdom of Solomon.