South Africa and its Rich History of Change

People have inhabited Southern Africa for thousands of years.The earliest peoples' in South Africa were the San and Khoekhoe peoples known as the Bushmen and Hottentots or Khoikhoi or collectively called the Khoisan. These people saw hope in the land beacause they were located right by water and the land was thereby very fertile. These early people were mostly hunter- gatherers and the Khoisan lived in well- watered areas, chiefly in the soutrthern and western coastal strips, where there was adequate grazing.They were very sustainable and found ways to use the land in a good way. After the Khoisan, a new group of people arose, who were the Bantu- speaking people. They moved to the north eastern and eastern regions of South Africa coming from the central part of Africa. They arrived hundreds of years before the Europeans but they are still an important group living in South Africa today. These people were actually agro- pastoralists, who had a culture based off of iron and sophisticated socio- politcal systems. After groups such as the Khoisan and the Bantu- speaking people started to call South Africa home, European settlers began to arrive. So, there was a huge assimilation of culture between the South Africans and the Euopean seafarers. In 1488,the Portuguese were the first Europeans to reach the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa.In the coming years, white settlement began to increase, when the Dutch East India Company established a provisioning station on the Cape. In the following decades, French Huguenot refugees, the Dutch, and Germans began to settle in South Africa and this caused social and political effects on the original people. The Europeans eventually took complete conrol of South Africa, in the 18th century, by winning the Frontier War. Beginning in 1836, to escape British rule and cultural hegemony, many Afrikaner farmers (Boers) made a migration to the north that became known as the "Great Trek." This movement brought them into contact and conflict with African groups such as the Zulus. The Zulus conquered most of the territory between the Drakensberg Mountains and the sea during their time before they were defeated. The discovery of diamonds at Kimberley in 1870 and the discovery of large gold deposits in the Witwatersrand region of the Transvaal in 1886 caused an influx of European (mainly British) immigration and investment. In addition, many blacks from neighboring countries also moved into the area to work in the mines. In 1948, the National Party (NP) took complete dominion and began passing legislation and enforcing an even stricter policy of white domination and racial separation known as "apartheid". The Apartheid was fought by people like Nelson Mandela through guerilla warfare and sabotage and South Africans were finally able to get their freedom on February 1990, when State President F.W. de Klerk came into power.He announced the unbanning of the ANC, the PAC, and all other anti-apartheid groups. This also created a domino effect with Nelson Madela being released from prison, "pillars of apartheid" were abolished, nonracial elections were held and Nelson Madela become president in 1994. During Nelson Mandela's 5-year term as President of South Africa, the government committed itself to reforming the country through improving unemployment, housing shortages, and crime. Mandela also began to reintroduce South Africa into the global economy by implementing the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR).Also, in order to move away from the scars of apartheid, the government created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). So, during this time period, the country became very sustainable and rebuilding was of upmost concern. The Europenas exploited the land in their rule and Nelson Mandela's administration wanted to fix this. So, there is a long history of South Africa starting with the Khoisan people, to the Bantu- speaking people, to the Afrikaners,Europens, Zulu's and Whites. Originally,the people moved to South Africa for pastoralism and agriculture. South Africa was a rich land area especially the Cape of Good Hope.Known for the stormy weather and rough seas, the Cape is situated at the convergence of the warm Mozambique-Agulhas current from the Indian Ocean and the cool Benguela current from Antarctic waters. Grass and low shrub vegetation is characteristic of it.It has rich flora and fauna and this is what attracted people to the area and what still attracts people.The Cape plays an important role in South African history as a stopping point for trading ships sailing between Europe and European colonies in the east. It was a huge trading center in Africa and that is why people started to migrate and live there.The Europeans, specifically, were in search of wealth and had political interests there.The Europeans found wealth in the vast gold and diamond deposits, so they stayed. Many Blacks also moved to South Africa to work in the mines for the Europeans. So, transportation was mostly through ships with Europeans traveling to and from their country while also bringing along slaves. Boats were the only way these slaves and trading peoples could get to South Africa. However, many of the ancient people did not stay in South Africa because of the "Great Trek", conflicts with people such as the Zulus,and the Apartheid that caused many South Africans to leave the area. Therefore,there is a huge white population in South Africa today because many of the original South Africans moved away during the Apartheid or were killed.

Sustainability with Gifford and Muir

Gifford Pinchot was America's first professional forester and founder of the U.S. Forest Service. Gifford Pinchot was born in 1865 in Simsbury, Connecticut.Pinchot was an early advocate of wildlife and forestry in the United States. He set the standard for other foresters and environmentalists such as John Muir, who he met in New York in 1893. However, John Muir and Pinchot saw a clash in their different beliefs.Pinchot was the leader of the utilitarian wing of the early conservation movement,under President Theodore Roosevelt. Muir took the opposing side.On one hand, Muir crusaded for the preservation of wilderness, while Pinchot campaigned for utilitarian use of public lands. Their major battle came with the protection of the Hetch Hetchy Valley. Their conflict ultimately saw a split between the preservation wing and the utilitarian wing of the conservation movement.

The Hetch Hetchy Valley was a small land area in Yosemite National Park. The City of San Francisco wanted a dam to be built in Hetch Hetchy Valley, which would supply much needed water to the city.The Preservationists, led by John Muir, were hugely opposed to the building of this dam. They felt that building a dam would destroy the natural beauty of the area. The Conservationists,led by Gifford Pinchot, felt that a dam would benefit the people greatly. In America, every newspaper jumped at the chance to follow the story and it even captured the nations' attention.

The Hetch Hetchy Valley battle was the first controversy about environmental and sustainability issues that garnered the whole country's attention. So, Gifford, in turn, is seen as an important catalyst for environmentalism. Gifford, however, is not seen as a big proponent of sustainability. He viewed sustainability as a barrier to progress. He basically thought that man trumped nature and being sustainable does not always benefit man. So, building a dam in Hetch Hetchy Valley was not a problem for him because it was necessary to supply water to the people. He did not take into account how the dam would hurt the land. So, Muir would definently be a greater backer of sustainability. He saw himself as one with nature while Gifford wanted nature for the taking. Though, Gifford and Muir are both good people to study in regards to sustainability because they both show the disadvantages and advantages of being sustainable. 

Gifford Pinchot and Hetch Hetchy Valley

Socialism vs. Capitalism

Capitalism and socialism are two different economic systems that help to structure our society. However, capitalism seems to be the one that fosters sustainability the least. Capitalism shows our commitment to unlimited accumulation of capital and to an order that places artificially generated private wants over individual and social needs. Capitalism is a system that knows no boundaries and environmental exploitation is just an inevitable consequence of it. In Chapter 1 of the Dresner book, Dresner recounts Malthus stance on population and how the influx of population would "always outstrip the growth in food supply"(11).So, capitalism would say that since the population size will steadily increase, we need to make sure we have enough food to feed the beast. However, in order to have more food, more land and resources will have to be destroyed and claimed for human use. Capitalism would say that this is warranted. Capitalism does not care about preserving but rather about manipulating the environment to be in its favor.

On the other hand, socialists tended to disagree with Malthus theory by saying that the "solution is in improved social and economic organization, more advanced technology and a consequent rise in the standard of living"(12). A socialist that backed this claim was Fourier. Fourier believed that a socialist regime would increase the wealth of the British and limit the population. Although his view was flawed, as living standards rose and urbanization grew in European countries in the 20th century, the population started to level out. So, as you can see, a socialist regime would be friendlier towards sustainability.

Engels and Marx were two critics of Malthus. Engels says in Chapter one of the Dresner book that "only a third of the Earth’s land surface was cultivated and the application of agricultural improvements already known could raise the production of this third six fold"(14). Therefore, Engels along with Marx saw no natural limits to outstripping the land and proposed that increased mechanization and agricultural productivity would only make this proposition more real.

Therefore, capitalism seems to be the main culprit in stagnating the sustainability movement. Capitalism sees that the more we develop the land, the less misery and poverty we will have. Socialists see that the more we develop the land and the less we conserve resources, than the population cannot be sustained for a long period of time.