The growth of attitudes, values and perceptions.

While a lot of the things that occurred in the different countries that experienced the influx of the emigrants from various countries, I believe that the scene in most of those countries had a lot in common. There was a problem of communication, as the emigrants came from different countries and would, quite naturally continue to communicate in the language of their country of origin. South Africa would, in the very early stages, mainly have received people who spoke English and Dutch, while the USA would have a number of languages, also including English, but adding a number of the other European countries. North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, India – the list is quite long, but the common denominator was the lack of a common medium.

What did all this mean? Merely introducing another language would not be the only change brought about by this universal migration/emigration. Religions, traditions, values – the list goes on, but there is one common denominator – communication in the early stages of the great international migration (spread over many years), was not easy. Perceptions of ‘them and us’, based on the experiences and observations of the earliest settlers on the one hand, and indigenous people on the other, must have been very complicated. One can only imagine the misconceptions experienced by either side, when the other, by signs and sounds, tried to communicate. A finger being pointed at one or other object  could well have been seen as a threat, or even an insult. Truly not a situation that bode well for future contacts.

I wonder if it was at this stage that the perceptions of the immigrants, or settlers, by the indigenous people began to show the gulf between them. Clearly there was no common language, but the attitudes and actions of the settlers might well have set the scene for a complex relationship. How did each group perceive the other? I would have loved to be present at the discussions of either group (clearly, I would not have been able to understand what was being said), but have observed the non-verbal signals ranging from fear to curiosity. As humans, we very often deduce more from what  we see than from what we hear, and as we are evaluating whatever is seen or heard, is interpreted by our own values, standards and perceptions.

Our world today, looking primarily at those countries where there was an influx of people from countries that had ‘progressed’ to the written word, and where history was recorded, it seems to have almost relegated the indigenous people to a lower ‘class’ or level in every case. The indigenous people invariably had no written word, although rock paintings may well have meant something to the people at that time – setting out a warning, or a message. Could it be that this situation caused the settlers from abroad to develop an attitude of superiority, an attitude which has remained with us over the years? The lack of a ‘common’ language’, different views and opinions, and the inability to communicate may well have contributed to the gulf that developed between the ‘settlers’ and the ‘settled’?

Colour, language, customs, all contributed to the developing situation as more and more settlers arrived, and it was very unlikely that any of them spoke or understood the people they encountered. The fact that some of these encounters were of a violent nature did not help to build good relationships between the different groups, and had a significant impact on the relationships, perceptions and values that developed. How did these influence the relationships in the future? More on this topic in the next blog.  

What next ?

We have now got two groups, completely different in appearance, clothing (or lack thereof), no common language, and probably – ill prepared for the situation they faced. One wonders if the leader of the group on board their sailing vessel had even developed a plan, or some sort of strategy to deal with the situation. History tells that that there was often conflict between the group, and this could not have had a positive outlook for future contacts factor by any means.

Clearly, the people on the ship would have had a great desire to get ashore, not in the least for the opportunity to get out of the cramped quarters, and onto dry land. One can only guess at the discussions that went on aboard the vessel, ranging from a desire to go ashore and meet whatever situation they encountered, while others might have felt the need to move further to find a landing spot that was not occupied. Whatever decision was taken in each group could also have been influenced by the numbers, the presence of any weapons,(a mix of guns, swords, spears and wooden clubs)  or any other instruments that could be perceived as weapons.

Clearly, the local inhabitants did not have firearms of any kind, but would rely on spears and clubs, while the travellers often had cannons, swords and spears. The question that must surely have troubled the leaders on either side was, “Should I wait for the first move, or should I show our strength?” A shot fired from a cannon (assuming the ships were equipped with these items normally found on travellers or adventurers vessels), or send a small group ashore, taking what might be  appropriate in the circumstances. This is not a position I would have enjoyed as a leader of this group , for there was no predictability or past experience to guide the decision makers. The travellers might well have been concerned about their food supply.

Ask yourself the question ‘What would I have done?), and I am sure you would wind end up with the same problem that faces me when I think about the situation. Clearly, there was a decision taken, as history shows us that the travellers did land (in a variety of situations) – one of them being that in some situations there was no-one of the beach, and the other was to select a few people (hopefully there were volunteers,  told by the ship’s captain to get on the longboat and go to the shore with some ‘gifts’ (remember that the there was no real guide as tp what would be appropriate), but the decision ion was probably left to the ship’s captain. A small group would probably selected, and set off towards land in the  longboat with a variety of ‘gifts’, hopefully regarded by those ashore as a peace offering.

In the next blog I try to conjure up some scenarios that might have developed once land had been reached. Till then –the SSA (Simple South Adrican) 

The language problem, then and now.

I find it very difficult to visualise the first encounters between two totally different groups who spoke different languages, and were of a different colour, attire and stature. An Englishman landing on the western shores of southern Africa (assuming he was about 6 feet tall) would come face to face with a local inhabitant, Bushman or Hottentot,( much nearer five feet), would probably find it hard to believe what he saw. The language each used, was probably completely incomprehensible to the other, must have sounded very strange. Sign language, using gestures that were unique to either side, would equally have been difficult to comprehend, but one must assume that some form of interaction was used to express the intentions of either side. Truly a difficult start to any relationship. I often sit and wonder how I would have handled such a situation, other than showing empty hands to try to express peaceful intent.

As time went by, I assume that certain words came into daily use, and different words used  in various situations became common. Words for food, water, wood, cattle and the like would probably been among those that fell into this category. Quite possibly each side introduced some words that would be used regularly, such as water. I cannot imagine how the settlers tried to explain their intent in coming to this ‘new’ land, and wonder if our forebears had any idea of the changes and developments that would take place over the years.

Coming back to modern times, and taking into account the settlers original experiences with the problems arising out of this first encounter, I find it very strange, that instead of developing a common language, we have, in South Africa, 11 official languages.

Based on the discussions I have had with a number of people from different groups and backgrounds, it seems that the ‘settlers’ were not inclined to spend a lot of time and effort to learn the local languages. This must have sent out a message that the settlers considered it the task of the ‘locals’ to learn ‘their’ language as the accepted form of communication. The lack of ability to communicate, except for certain basic words, must have been a considerable barrier, and in my view, did very little to build relationships. In the next blog I will comment on the effect that I feel this had on the perceptions each group, local and immigrant, had of each other and how this affected that relationship.

The Simple South African continues.

Local and personal circumstances have rather interfered with my normal routines which include selling a house, moving to a new venue, trying to adjust to much smaller premises (previously four bedrooms, three bathrooms, study, kitchen, lounge and dining room and an outside ‘flat comprising bedroom, lounge kitchen and bathroom. There was also a large garage and workshop (my favourite space) and two small gardens. I now, with my wife of some 50 years, occupy a two bedroom flat, with kitchen,  lounge, verandah, garage and small garden. Talk about a small change.

Life goes on, however, and with all the above-mentioned, that has rather disturbed the writing activities, I fear I have neglected my readers. Will try to correct that, starting now.

In previous blogs I have referred to the events that accompanied the migrations around the world, with the more adventurous setting out for foreign, and often very different, and challenging situations, while in other cases, there were those fleeing persecution. They were often not very well-informed, as they based their decisions on the tales brought back by adventurers, seekers of wealth, and those who wanted to find ‘something better’. Inevitably, the information spread by these people was tinted by their wants, needs, or a desire to leave the place in which they found themselves.

 I often find myself sitting at this keyboard wondering what was so ‘bad’ in their current situation, or so ‘attractive’ elsewhere that so many people from different countries would leave their existing situations. There are historical records that might enlighten us, but I have found few ‘factual’ writings that give a clear picture of the .good, bad and ugly, so that those wishing to leave their homes and countries were well-informed, and prepared for what they would encounter.

One of the questions that have stuck in my mind over the years (my parents emigrated from the Netherlands many years after the early settlers) was whether what they found was so much better than where they were. This question must have had far more significance for those early settlers who found no written records or clear information that described the destinations they sought, and it does appear that quite a few were ‘running away from’ for many different reasons, rather than running towards something better.

The language problem, then and now.

I find it very difficult to visualise the first encounters between two totally different groups who spoke different languages, and were of a different colour, attire and stature. An Englishman landing on the western shores of southern Africa (assuming he was about 6 feet tall) would come face to face with a local inhabitant, Bushman or Hottentot,( much nearer five feet), would probably find it hard to believe what he saw. The language each used, was probably completely incomprehensible to the other, must have sounded very strange. Sign language, using gestures that were unique to either side, would equally have been difficult to comprehend, but one must assume that some form of interaction was used to express the intentions of either side. Truly a difficult start to any relationship. I often sit and wonder how I would have handled such a situation, other than showing empty hands to try to express peaceful intent.

As time went by, I assume that certain words came into daily use, and different words used  in various situations became common. Words for food, water, wood, cattle and the like would probably been among those that fell into this category. Quite possibly each side introduced some words that would be used regularly, such as water. I cannot imagine how the settlers tried to explain their intent in coming to this ‘new’ land, and wonder if our forebears had any idea of the changes and developments that would take place over the years.

Coming back to modern times, and taking into account the settlers original experiences with the problems arising out of this first encounter, I find it very strange, that instead of developing a common language, we have, in South Africa, 11 official languages.

Based on the discussions I have had with a number of people from different groups and backgrounds, it seems that the ‘settlers’ were not inclined to spend a lot of time and effort to learn the local languages. This must have sent out a message that the settlers considered it the task of the ‘locals’ to learn ‘their’ language as the accepted form of communication. The lack of ability to communicate, except for certain basic words, must have been a considerable barrier, and in my view, did very little to build relationships. In the next blog I will comment on the effect that I feel this had on the perceptions each group, local and immigrant, had of each other and how this affected that relationship.

The early Colonial days – assumptions, confrontations, and where it all began.

In the era where many countries had emigrants going to distant lands, for any number of reasons, the arrival of the ‘foreigners’ in different parts of the world, Africa, Australia, USA, and numerous other smaller countries would no doubt have highlighted the differences between the new arrivals, and the existing occupants. The questions I often ask myself relate to a large extent, on how they communicated. What did they think when they saw the people so unlike them, and what emotions were they experiencing, on both sides?

The question that has strained my few grey cells (now just starting my 83^rd year) were mainly related to the way of communicating. No doubt some arrows flew through the air, with some bullets flying in the opposite direction. What signs did they make to show peaceful intentions, or at least, some good will? I suppose that we will not easily find literature dealing with the subject.

If I were to speculate a bit, I would assume the one ‘side’ saw the others as a threat, as this was a strange situation, with very little predictability. The travellers would see people unlike most of them had encountered before, and the other would see a strange group of human figures coming across the sea on large floating ‘logs’  The fear of the unknown might have been a huge factor in the decisions around the issue of ‘flight or fight. The travellers from across the sea, having spent many months at sea, with all the problems related to such a journey, would be relieved to have reached their ‘destination’.

The question that challenges my mind is how each side perceived the other, or actually learned something about each other from these early confrontations. The perceptions of the travellers, observing the ‘undressed’ condition of the others, their behaviour, waving spears and shields, would no doubt have been seen by the travellers as signs of a primitive and warlike people. The absence of any form of communication, other than by showing open hands not holding anything that could be seen as a weapon, must have been a small sign that there was no threat. This is purely conjecture. From what I have read, there had been some very small successes in communication from the missionaries, but I cannot believe that this was sufficiently widespread to make a difference to the population at large.

One of the things that I have been thinking about a great deal, when considering what to include, or exclude, when writing this particular blog,  is what perceptions each group had of the other. Did the travellers have the perception that they were dealing with an uncivilized, warlike, and somehow ‘inferior’ race that needed to be ‘converted’, defeated, or even eliminated? Did the inhabitants when they saw these strange, pale-faced beings believe it was necessary to protect themselves against this strange unknown group? Whatever the views were, history shows us that the ‘travellers’ considered the ‘locals’, by and large, as uncivilized by their standards and values. Were these encounters the beginning of the perception that persist to this day that certain groups are inferior to others? More in the next blog

The Simple South African returns.

My apologies to all my readers who have been looking to see if I have added anything to my writing over the last couple of months. We have just moved to a small apartment in a ‘secure environment’, a large area, enclosed by a wall, over several acres. It is very well maintained, and secure,, with grass and trees all around. It is a small unit, two rooms that serve as bedroom and lounge, a kitchen, bathroom, and outside, a garage, At our age, this is probably all we need, as there are shops and other facilities close by.

Going back over my scribblings of the last few years, my mind went to when the first early settlers came from Europe. I wonder what the made of the land they saw from their ships, and what sort of emotions they experienced. They would have had little information about what to expect, other than the reports of a few missionaries who had visited the lands, and brought back some small impressions that they shared when they returned to their homelands. How did they perceive the inhabitants, who would probably have been described as large, fierce and black people? What was it that made these explorers, missionaries or adventurers in search of riches, decide to risk a dangerous journey in sailing ships, or, in some cases, across large tracts of land? A search for wealth, a sense of adventure, a desire to spread their influence in whatever sphere they found themselves or fleeing from the position the situations they found themselves, and sort greener pastures?

A question that comes to mind quite often is what their perception was of the residents of the land they sought to occupy. Did they seek to help the people who lived in these lands , to bring new beliefs and values for the purpose of upliftment, conversion to ‘their’ beliefs  and values which they perceived as being better than those held by the occupants. I suppose that the answer could be ‘All of these’. The message that was being sent out, once this ‘migration’ started, either consciously or unconsciously was that ‘We have something better than you have, and are bringing it to you’. To my mind this was the beginning of the problems that arose later between races, religions, with varying values and beliefss.

A note from the Simple South African.

Greetings to readers across the world. First of all, I would like to apologise for the spasmodic publishing of my blogs. The statistics indicate that over the time of my writing, there have been over 40 000 hits, who have read many pages, encouraging me to continue writing.

I have been going through a bit of a rough time, and am in the middle of moving to another city, Pretoria, some 50km from Johannesburg. This is being done to enable us to be a little nearer to family, which I have missed for many years (close to 60 years) when I worked away from Cape Town initially (my ‘growing up years). The upheaval  when I left home, eventually , over many tears of moving around), eventually arriving in Johannesburg, have resulted in very little real contact with family, hopefully now resolved by moving to Pretoria (the legislative centre of South Africa).

I will be taking up the blog ‘history’ for South Africa from the time of the early settlers, and the trials and tribulations that arose when people of very different values, languages and cultures started to occupy the African continent. One of the themes I will pursue arises from the question ‘how could we have done it better?’

Till next time –A simple South African.

Confrontation.

Looking back at the time when people from Europe in the main –including Spain and Portugal, emigrated to countries such as South Africa, the United States, Australia, South America, New Zealand. There seemed to be an attitude by these intrepid explorers (spending long period on a small ocean-going craft) that they were somehow superior to the inhabitants they encountered on arrival. History tells us that some of the original encounters were violent, based on no more than, in my humble opinion, different colours, values, beliefs, and possibly ignoring the fact that these were people. Clearly I am not in a position to give a detailed breakdown of numbers, as I imagine that this was the last thing with which these would concerned themselves.

If we look at the situations in South Africa (and countries to the north in Africa), Australia, South America, New Zealand, it would be surprising to find a record of peaceful interaction attending these encounters – no common language, different colours, different languages, customs and values – all would have contributed to superstition, fear, inevitably leading to violent confrontation. One of the issues that has puzzled me for years is how the ‘Missionary’ group – many of them – if my history books can be believed, brutally killed, found their way into some of the local tribes/groups and managed to survive and spread their word among what they would classify as ‘ the Heathens’.

Returning to the earlier comment about the interaction between settlers (the locals would probably been more inclined to call them the ‘invaders)’. Each country that was ‘invaded’ during this period would have had different reactions, depending upon the attitude and actions of the ‘invaders.’ It is hard to believe that the indigenous Africans, or occupants of the countries concerned, would accept the settlers who carried sticks that could spew death over considerable  distances as being friendly., The ‘settlers, on the other hand, would not be too tolerant towards the ‘locals’ who made off with their cattle and horses, and attacked them as they travelled in their chosen direction.

The assumption that I have often heard expressed, when the issue of colonisation arises, is that the indigenous groups were, in many ways ‘inferior’, to the settlers. Once must then ask the question, – what is your measuring stick? The indigenous group had survived terrible storms, tribal wars, drought and disease, not to mention ongoing other natural disasters. The tribal systems that existed had been established over many years, each with their own identity. They they had, each in their own way, established a society with its traditions, which may have seemed strange, barbaric or frightening to the ‘invaders who came to the country with their own particular objectives and goals – who could have been fleeing a situation in their home country, or opportunity in another. Their perceptions of what lay ahead were based on reports by those who had ‘been there, done that’, which would clearly be influenced by their experiences.

One thing that I have found in most of my reading, is that the ‘intruders’ regarded the indigenous folk to be ‘inferior’, based on whatever standard or norm they used to measure the customs, behaviours and values they encountered. They then set about making the locals ‘more like us’. This implied a view that wherever they were, and whatever they saw or experienced, needed to be more in line with the thinking and views of the migrants, not the locals. Given the difficulty in communicating (or even the desire to communicate), this did not bode well for a peaceful future. When I sit and read about what is happening in the country today, it appears to me that the rift between the different groups in South Africa (and if I can believe the information put out on the TV about the countries that have had an influx of settlers from other countries, it would seem that the ability to screen  the success stories about this issue is hampered by the constant ‘news’ put out by all the media about the conflicts and confrontations. The incident in the USA where a ‘white’ policeman caused the death of a ‘black’ man by applying an illegal, and highly dangerous choke hold, (without any intervention by the bystanders), sent out , to me, a message that such events probably occur around the world. The sad part of all this, is the racial emphasis (and South Africa has more than enough incidents of such behaviours between people of different races). Are we not exacerbating the rift that we are trying to close, by screening such incidents? The question that arises in my mind is ‘Where do we begin- and who should show the way?’

Back to the beginning – some 300 years ago.

I hope you had a Blessed and peaceful Christmas, and wish you all the best for the new year. On with the blog.

Around three hundred years ago, if I can believe my history lessons from my schooldays, there was a small flow of people from Europe to the southern tip of Africa. There were also movements across the world from the north to the south and the east to the west with people seeking better opportunities, bringing with them different cultures, beliefs, and values, but also fleeing from tyranny. Whatever the reason for the migration, it clearly brought different groups, those already there, and those arriving from elsewhere, into contact with each other in situations ranging from peaceful, to violent confrontation.

An interesting situation, although I suppose it could be better described as a phenomenon, seems to be an assumption held by the migrants. This assumption was that no matter what they found at their destination, whatever they were bringing with them was superior to what they expected to find. I assume that they felt they were bringing ‘civilisation’ or at least something better than what they believed, or assumed, existed at their destination. Many others were fleeing from some form of oppression or religious intolerance in their home countries, and of course there were the fortune seekers looking for the elusive ‘pot of gold’. History also shows us that many of the ‘new arrivals’ were not exactly met with open arms.

This migration led, I believe, to the situations that arose in Africa (and I will focus on South Africa for the moment) where conflicts arose between people of different colours, Black, Brown and White. Meany emigrants came from Europe (German, French, Italian, Portugese. British, Dutch), and several other, smaller countries.  The significant factor for me, thinking about this situation, was that there were few ‘unifying’ factors, and I assume that each country that experienced this phenomenon of migration would be faced with the differences in language, culture, religions, values and beliefs. The one thing that stands out for me, and this is an observation based on some of my reading, is that the ‘immigrants’ invariably seemed to assume that they  were ‘superior’ to the local inhabitants. There is no doubt that this attitude was not cheerfully accepted by the indigenous population, who felt that they had been going along quite happily since the beginning of time, and could well do without this influx of strangers.

The emigrants from Europe, in the main, from the UK, Spain, Germany, Netherlands and also several other European countries, took with them the written word, religious beliefs and customs, and it seems to me, from my reading about Africa, USA, Australia, and several other countries, that they felt it was their task to ‘uplift’, educate and ‘civilize’ the locals. It seems to me that such an attitude was not a recipe for peace and harmony, as the locals probably believed, and felt, that they were doing quite well on their own. My view of this situation, based on my reading, is that the indigenous groups saw this as a threat to their accepted ways and customs, while  they felt that the ‘invaders’ wanted to change everything, projecting a view to the indigenous residents that they were, in some way, ‘inferior’. Clearly, this was not a situation that led to peace and harmony, as the indigenous people saw this influx of strangers as an invasion, and history reflects many bloody confrontations where the two groups met.

In the next blog I will try to look at some of the conflicts that arose as a result of this phenomenon where immigrant met local, and how the result of these encounters still have a not inconsiderable effect on the current situation in many countries.

Confrontation.

Looking back at the time when people from Europe in the main –including Spain and Portugal, emigrated to countries such as South Africa, the United States, Australia, South America, New Zealand. There seemed to be an attitude by these intrepid explorers (spending long period on a small ocean-going craft) that they were somehow superior to the inhabitants they encountered on arrival. History tells us that some of the original encounters were violent, based on no more than, in my humble opinion, different colours, values, beliefs, and possibly ignoring the fact that these were people. Clearly I am not in a position to give a detailed breakdown of numbers, as I imagine that this was the last thing with which these would concerned themselves.

If we look at the situations in South Africa (and countries to the north in Africa), Australia, South America, New Zealand, it would be surprising to find a record of peaceful interaction attending these encounters – no common language, different colours, different languages, customs and values – all would have contributed to superstition, fear, inevitably leading to violent confrontation. One of the issues that has puzzled me for years is how the ‘Missionary’ group – many of them – if my history books can be believed, brutally killed, found their way into some of the local tribes/groups and managed to survive and spread their word among what they would classify as ‘ the Heathens’.

Returning to the earlier comment about the interaction between settlers (the locals would probably been more inclined to call them the ‘invaders)’. Each country that was ‘invaded’ during this period would have had different reactions, depending upon the attitude and actions of the ‘invaders.’ It is hard to believe that the indigenous Africans, or occupants of the countries concerned, would accept the settlers who carried sticks that could spew death over considerable  distances as being friendly., The ‘settlers, on the other hand, would not be too tolerant towards the ‘locals’ who made off with their cattle and horses, and attacked them as they travelled in their chosen direction.

The assumption that I have often heard expressed, when the issue of colonisation arises, is that the indigenous groups were, in many ways ‘inferior’, to the settlers. Once must then ask the question, – what is your measuring stick? The indigenous group had survived terrible storms, tribal wars, drought and disease, not to mention ongoing other natural disasters. The tribal systems that existed had been established over many years, each with their own identity. They they had, each in their own way, established a society with its traditions, which may have seemed strange, barbaric or frightening to the ‘invaders who came to the country with their own particular objectives and goals – who could have been fleeing a situation in their home country, or opportunity in another. Their perceptions of what lay ahead were based on reports by those who had ‘been there, done that’, which would clearly be influenced by their experiences.

One thing that I have found in most of my reading, is that the ‘intruders’ regarded the indigenous folk to be ‘inferior’, based on whatever standard or norm they used to measure the customs, behaviours and values they encountered. They then set about making the locals ‘more like us’. This implied a view that wherever they were, and whatever they saw or experienced, needed to be more in line with the thinking and views of the migrants, not the locals. Given the difficulty in communicating (or even the desire to communicate), this did not bode well for a peaceful future.

When I sit and read about what is happening in the country today, it appears to me that the rift between the different groups in South Africa (and if I can believe the information put out on the TV about the countries that have had an influx of settlers from other countries, it would seem that the ability to screen  the success stories about this issue is hampered by the constant ‘news’ put out by all the media about the conflicts and confrontations. The incident in the USA where a ‘white’ policeman caused the death of a ‘black’ man by applying an illegal, and highly dangerous choke hold, (without any intervention by the bystanders), sent out , to me, a message that such events probably occur around the world. The sad part of all this, is the racial emphasis (and South Africa has more than enough incidents of such behaviours between people of different races). Are we not exacerbating the rift that we are trying to close, by screening such incidents? The question that arises in my mind is ‘Where do we begin- and who should show the way?’.

Confrontation.

Looking back at the time when people from Europe in the main –including Spain and Portugal, emigrated to countries such as South Africa, the United States, Australia, South America, New Zealand. There seemed to be an attitude by these intrepid explorers (spending long period on a small ocean-going craft) that they were somehow superior to the inhabitants they encountered on arrival. History tells us that some of the original encounters were violent, based on no more than, in my humble opinion, different colours, values, beliefs, and possibly ignoring the fact that these were people. Clearly I am not in a position to give a detailed breakdown of numbers, as I imagine that this was the last thing with which these would concerned themselves.

If we look at the situations in South Africa (and countries to the north in Africa), Australia, South America, New Zealand, it would be surprising to find a record of peaceful interaction attending these encounters – no common language, different colours, different languages, customs and values – all would have contributed to superstition, fear, inevitably leading to violent confrontation. One of the issues that has puzzled me for years is how the ‘Missionary’ group – many of them – if my history books can be believed, brutally killed, found their way into some of the local tribes/groups and managed to survive and spread their word among what they would classify as ‘ the Heathens’.

Returning to the earlier comment about the interaction between settlers (the locals would probably been more inclined to call them the ‘invaders)’. Each country that was ‘invaded’ during this period would have had different reactions, depending upon the attitude and actions of the ‘invaders.’ It is hard to believe that the indigenous Africans, or occupants of the countries concerned, would accept the settlers who carried sticks that could spew death over considerable  distances as being friendly., The ‘settlers, on the other hand, would not be too tolerant towards the ‘locals’ who made off with their cattle and horses, and attacked them as they travelled in their chosen direction.

The assumption that I have often heard expressed, when the issue of colonisation arises, is that the indigenous groups were, in many ways ‘inferior’, to the settlers. Once must then ask the question, – what is your measuring stick? The indigenous group had survived terrible storms, tribal wars, drought and disease, not to mention ongoing other natural disasters. The tribal systems that existed had been established over many years, each with their own identity. They they had, each in their own way, established a society with its traditions, which may have seemed strange, barbaric or frightening to the ‘invaders who came to the country with their own particular objectives and goals – who could have been fleeing a situation in their home country, or opportunity in another. Their perceptions of what lay ahead were based on reports by those who had ‘been there, done that’, which would clearly be influenced by their experiences.

One thing that I have found in most of my reading, is that the ‘intruders’ regarded the indigenous folk to be ‘inferior’, based on whatever standard or norm they used to measure the customs, behaviours and values they encountered. They then set about making the locals ‘more like us’. This implied a view that wherever they were, and whatever they saw or experienced, needed to be more in line with the thinking and views of the migrants, not the locals. Given the difficulty in communicating (or even the desire to communicate), this did not bode well for a peaceful future.

When I sit and read about what is happening in the country today, it appears to me that the rift between the different groups in South Africa (and if I can believe the information put out on the TV about the countries that have had an influx of settlers from other countries, it would seem that the ability to screen  the success stories about this issue is hampered by the constant ‘news’ put out by all the media about the conflicts and confrontations. The incident in the USA where a ‘white’ policeman caused the death of a ‘black’ man by applying an illegal, and highly dangerous choke hold, (without any intervention by the bystanders), sent out , to me, a message that such events probably occur around the world. The sad part of all this, is the racial emphasis (and South Africa has more than enough incidents of such behaviours between people of different races). Are we not exacerbating the rift that we are trying to close, by screening such incidents? The question that arises in my mind is ‘Where do we begin- and who should show the way?’.