Advertisement

GeoJournal

, Volume 77, Issue 6, pp 753–763 | Cite as

Property rights, land tenure and the racial discourses

  • Maano RamutsindelaEmail author
Article

Abstract

A persistent theme in land and agrarian studies is the appropriation of land and natural resources by mostly Western foreigners and the inequitable division of land and natural resources between Indigenous people and white settlers. It was this overt racial inequality in land ownership and the accompanying structures of oppression that led to the rise of liberation movements in Africa, South America and Asia. Most, if not all, land and agrarian reform programmes in the former colonies take the racial inequality in land as their point of departure. The same applies to the process of changing the inequalities in the use and ownership of natural resources such as wildlife, fisheries and forests. Whereas critical scholarship and social movements vehemently opposed the racialized nature of land dispossession, less attention has been paid to the persistence of racialized tenure systems. The silence on the racial character of land and natural resource tenure is rather surprising given that colonial tenure systems were based on race and racist grounds. This paper draws on examples from nature conservancies and communal land reform in southern Africa to argue that the dual land and natural resource tenure inherent from colonialism and apartheid remains intact in contemporary southern Africa. It also suggests that the democratic governments in the region and critical scholarship have failed to challenge the racialized character of land tenure. Instead, they continued to reinvent orthodox views of society and culture. Race seems to matter most in property regimes in the region in as far as it relates to equity rather than its initial categorization of people. The consequences of the persistence of the racialized tenure systems are that the success or failure of land and resource use and management reproduces racial explanations.

Keywords

Race Communal tenure Conservancies Dualism 

References

  1. African National Congress. (1994). The Reconstruction and Development Programme. Johannesburg: Umanyano.Google Scholar
  2. Alden Wily, L. (2001). Reconstructing the African commons. Africa Today, 48(1), 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnard, P. (1998). Biological diversity in Namibia: A country study. Windhoek: Namibian National Biodiversity Team.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, S. (1993). No Condition is permanent: The social dynamics of agrarian change in Sub-Saharan Africa. Madison, Wisc: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, S. (2001). Chiefs know their boundaries: Essays on property, power and the past in Asante, 1896–1996. Oxford: James Currey.Google Scholar
  6. Blomley, N. (2003). Law, property and the geography of violence: the frontier, the survey and the grid. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(1), 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Business Day. (2000). Title to land in tribal areas to go to communities. www.bday.co.za. Accessed February 18, 2000.
  8. Cape of Good Hope. (1813). Proclamation on Conversion of Loan Places to Perpetual Quitrent. Cape Town: Cape Times.Google Scholar
  9. Cape of Good Hope. (1894). Glen Grey Act. Cape Town: Cape Times.Google Scholar
  10. Cape of Good Hope (1898). Hansard. Cape Town: Cape Times.Google Scholar
  11. Carruthers, J. (1995). The Kruger National Park: A social and political history. Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.Google Scholar
  12. Christopher, A. J. (1994). The atlas of apartheid. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Claasen, A. (2005). Land reform and agrarian change in southern Africa: Occasional paper 28. Bellville: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies.Google Scholar
  14. Conservancies Association of Namibia. (1996). Constitution of the Conservancies Association of Namibia. Windhoek: Conservancies Association of Namibia.Google Scholar
  15. Cousins, B. (2007). More than socially embedded: The distinctive character of ‘communal tenure’ regimes in South Africa and its implications for land policy. Journal of Agrarian Change, 7(3), 281–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisch, J. (1988). Africa as terra nullis: The Berlin Conference and international law. In S. Forster, W. J. Mommsen, & R. Robinson (Eds.), Bismarck, Europe and Africa: The Berlin Africa Conference 1884–1885 and the onset of partition (pp. 347–375). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8), 1709–1791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. James, D. (2007). Gaining ground: ‘rights’ and ‘property’ in South African land reform. London: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
  19. Langholz, J. A., & Lassie, J. (2001). Perils and promise of privately owned protected areas. BioScience, 51(12), 1079–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Long, S. A. (2002). Disentangling benefits: livelihoods, natural resource management and managing revenue from tourismThe experience of the Torra Conservancy. Department of Environment and Tourism Research Discussion Paper 53. Windhoek.Google Scholar
  21. Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Press.Google Scholar
  22. Marks, S. (1980). The myth of the empty land. History Today, 30(1), 7–12.Google Scholar
  23. Nature Conservancy. (2001). Private land management and conservation: A guide to organisations. Arlington.Google Scholar
  24. Platteau, J.-P. (2000). Does Africa Need Land Reform? In C. Toulmin & J. Quan (Eds.), Evolving land rights, policy and tenure in Africa (pp. 51–73). London: IIED.Google Scholar
  25. Rose-Innes, R. W. (1936). The Glen Grey Act and the native question (Unpublished Paper). Lovedale Press: King William’s Town.Google Scholar
  26. Samkange, S. (1982). What Rhodes really said about Africans. Harare: Harare Publishing House.Google Scholar
  27. Shumba, M. (1998). Devolution of natural resource tenure in Namibia. In E. Rehoy (Ed.), Natural resource tenure in southern Africa: Exploring options and opportunities. Proceedings of a workshop on land/resource tenure and decentralisation (pp. 74–82). Gaborone: SADC Secretariat.Google Scholar
  28. South Africa. (2004). Communal Land Rights Act 11. Pretoria: Government Printer.Google Scholar
  29. Van Onselen, C. (1996). The seed is mine: The life of Kas Maine, A South African sharecropper 1894–1985. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball.Google Scholar
  30. Wallace-Bruce, N. L. (1985). Africa and international law–the emergence of statehood. Journal of Modern African Studies, 23(4), 575–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. West, H. W. (2000). On African land holding—A review of tenurial change and land policies in Anglophone Africa. Lewiston NY: Edwin Mellon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wiggins, E. (1929). The Glen Grey Act and its effects upon the native system of land tenure in Cape Colony and the Transkein Districts (Masters Thesis). Cape Town: University of Cape Town.Google Scholar
  33. Young, C. (1994). The African colonial state in comparative perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental and Geographical ScienceUniversity of Cape TownRondeboschSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations