MARXISTS have focused on global economics and ignored how colonialists established local economies. This method lumps all colonial territories together, ignoring settler and extractive colonies. The purpose of bringing these territories to capitalism was identical, but European settlement sites differed greatly.
Spanish and Portuguese colonies in Latin America, Algeria, and English colonies including the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, and South Africa welcomed the most Europeans.
It is well known that indigenous peoples of the Americas, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia were either killed, enslaved, or miscegenated. Local populations survived in South Africa, Namibia, and Zimbabwe. Understand the connection between colonial authorities and locals in these territories. These areas are notable for their colonialism and significant native and settler settlements. This means that the extent of colonialism and its procedures in these countries differed from those in Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, and colonial India, where white colonies were not permanent.
Economics, dispossessions, conflict, bloodshed, and raw force enforced colonial control were everywhere. Tastes, culture, identities, language, and other “soft” components were applied in settler colonies. The soft-hard connection remains the least studied. This inhibits people from comprehending the amadlozi economy, which is driven by traditional African cultural practices and beliefs and sustains the white-dominated South African economy today.
The destruction or mutilation of civilisations to sustain colonisation is rarely discussed. In “Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism”, prominent researcher Mahmood Mamdani claims that European colonialism in Africa was exceptionally violent and destructive, destroying African societies and customs. This book examines how colonialism changed African societies and its lasting effects.
This op-ed also discusses how colonial rule changed African cultures and rituals for profit. Relevant cultures and practices were fostered or discouraged. Pre-colonial Africa revolved around animals and land. Authors such as JA Barnes claim that cattle were utilised as payment and in social and cultural practices including marriage and burial.
Thus, colonists “sought to acquire flocks and herds of their own to increase their personal wealth”. Grazing land and animals may have caused early Cape disputes between Europeans and Africans. The first 200 years of European rule of the Cape “was a process of unrelenting dispossession of land from autochthonous people, a record of livestock raiding and counter-raiding, and endemic violence”.
Livestock ownership was at the centre of conflicts, but it made sense to build an economy around animals. As usual, colonialism imposed its will on Africans. Settler colonial administrators used subtle and strong methods to consolidate power and grow the economy.
Thus, this opinion piece examines the relationship between African culture, traditions, and customs (soft aspects) and the colonial economy (hard elements) from its beginnings to the present. This article does not discuss spirituality or give advice. Its goal is to highlight how African cultural practices and commercialism were and are exploited to benefit an economy that views Africans as resources rather than proprietors. Capitalism’s adaptability ensures its pervasiveness.
White colonialism and African culture
In an environment that denigrated all things African, certain traditional practices and customs were distorted to promote the economic. According to David Gordon and Shepard Krech, “even areas of colonial power that seemed most benevolent and most prone to indigenous influences, in fact, became responsible for the suppression of local knowledge, the reordering of local livelihoods, and the entrenchment of colonial hegemony”.
Africans were forced to register dogs, cattle, and other animals for tax purposes. Their livestock was taken due to their cashless economy. “Many cattle raids (both official and unofficial) by settlers” followed the 1894 Hut Tax Ordinance in colonial Zimbabwe (Southern Rhodesia), according to Terence Ranger. “Cattle destocking created explosive tensions between Africans and the state.”
With the expropriation of land to settlers, Africans were forced to live in native reserves, limiting their animal numbers. Africans were upset because animals were important to them. However, colonial authorities limited stock ownership in local reserves to fewer animals.
Europeans brought new diseases to Africa. According to historians Wesley Mwatwara and Sandra Swart, “in cases where African livestock regimes were unable to deal with these epizootics, Africans correctly linked such diseases with colonialism and the expansion of capitalist production”. European settlers also used fencing and trespassing laws to prevent animal ownership.
Allison K Shutt wrote in “The Settlers’ Cattle Complex: The Etiquette of Culling Cattle in Colonial Zimbabwe, 1938”, that cattle culling in colonial Zimbabwe combined “the notions of power over people and animals”. Settler communities relied on cattle production, which had to be supported at all costs. South African “black culture” was constructed for this.
This opinion piece discusses harsh rules and the “soft” features (African cultural practices) that settlers used to boost the economic and agriculture sector through demand and marketplaces. Lobola, “go phahlela badimo” (ancestral worship), sangomas, and beliefs all butcher animals, sheep, and goats.
African cultural practices under colonialism, commercialism, and oppression are worth investigating. African cultural practices appear to have survived colonialism and apartheid, and settler groups did not seem concerned about their survival. Thus, one fundamental issue must be asked: Why were these practices permitted to prosper and take over our lives?
It was not their endurance to colonialism and apartheid. It’s much more complicated. The major argument is that commercial aspects of these practices answer this question. Africans had to beg white settlers for jobs after their lands and animals were expropriated. Capitalism adapts to all conditions. Since it’s the only economic system, it’s unbeatable.
How did Africans enter the white economy? Black Africans were expected to buy land and cattle despite the cashless economy. Weddings, lobola, and ceremonies stimulated demand in a white-owned economy, according to colonial rulers. These practices still matter.
According to the Malabo Montpellier Panel, Africa is “a livestock-rich continent representing about one-third of the world’s livestock population … (and) the livestock sector accounts for about 40% of agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) in Africa”. Thus, commercialised production was fertile ground for promotion and protection from African competition.
Commercial agriculture with ‘African culture
Goats dominate East and West Africa, whereas cattle are bred between Ethiopia and Nigeria. Commercialism supports South Africa’s largest livestock sector. Milk, skin, bones, and excrement are key by-products of animals that are consumed locally and abroad. Cattle and goats are vital to African culture and a rich business that Statistics SA and economists overlook.
Goats and sheep sell for at least R1 500 and cows for up to R20 000. Who owns South African livestock? These animals are not with the indigenous folk who “lack the expertise and space to raise them”.
African culture is intertwined with commercial agribusiness. Most African cultures require poultry, cattle, sheep, and goats. Pigs and hens were once unpopular, but commercialism, poverty, and artificial scarcity have made them popular. Children and families mostly ate pigs and chickens. They had no prominence. Due to these manufactured African customs and traditions, pigs (pork) have less market value than sheep (mutton) or cattle (beef).
Cattle were cherished and never slaughtered. According to historian Jeff Peires, cattle provided food, clothes, fertiliser, and fuel. Tools were made from bones, and animals were traded. The African “cattle complex” gave communities money and status. “Cattle are also used as a form of currency and medium of exchange in many societies,” writes anthropologist JS Galaty
Africans were needed as cheap labour, consumers, and taxpayers as the white-owned economy grew. Wages became their main source of income, allowing them to pay a head tax and buy consumer goods, including livestock, since they had lost most of their possessions.
Maintaining fake African culture, including traditions, customs, and practices, was carefully linked to the white economy through lobola, badimo/amadlozi, and weddings. Now, there is a move to celebrate Ancestors Day, another commercial venture to stimulate the white economy.
The commercialisation of African cultural practices to boost the agricultural sector of the economy led to hyperconsumerism in black culture, which boosts demand for livestock and other consumer goods during traditional practices, weddings, and religion. These cultural practices are also linked to religion for the same reason.
Apartheid ended long ago – stop blaming!
South Africans sometimes say: “Stop playing the blame game, apartheid ended a long time ago!” while discussing black economic difficulties. However, economic mechanisms that perpetuate black poverty must be examined. New churches prefer tithes because increasing populations need more cattle and goats for daily sustenance. Economics principles stay unchanged. Supply and demand must constantly be met.
The country’s economy relies on “African traditions”, but no statistics are available to measure their GDP contribution. They may be worth more than R700 billion per year and account for about 60% of black household expenditure around Easter and December holidays.
Black buying patterns typically contradict economic rationale, especially regarding income and household size. Amadlozi, a shadow economy in South Africa, is the cause. Weddings cost at least R300 000, whereas lobola costs R60 000 – R100 000. Traditional rituals frequently spend most on animals (cattle and goats) and manufactured commodities such as beer, food, and apparel. It’s astonishing micro-economists haven’t investigated this crucial area.
“African culture” expenditure alone may cause low savings and wastage, leading to poverty and pain, especially among young adults who are expected to value tradition above their life. Young people must pay excessive lobola fees and organise traditional rites for “ancestors” regardless of their income.
“African culture” and the white-dominated South African economy are astonishingly linked. Perhaps it’s time for national discourse to break the link between “African culture” and the economy. This discourse should minimise the costs of African traditions, customs, and rituals.
African culture, clothing,
South Africa needs a cultural revolution to fix its economy and social issues. African culture sustains the intoxicated “Nomahhelele nation”. Most African ceremonies – weddings, imisebenzi, and “after-tears” – include excessive alcohol consumption and misconduct. Thus, a cultural revolution will restore the African family and change the connection between Africans and the white economy. Unfortunately, Basotho, BaPedi, AmaSwazi, AmaNdebele, and others’ traditional apparel is part of the white economic empire across countries.
British colonialism in India included cloth. Like Africa, the subcontinent’s weather allowed women to wear less clothing. “Even in colonial times, some women did not cover the upper part of their body” in southern India. At best, people spun wool or cotton into cloth at home.
Indian textile exports had a comparative advantage until the British India Company and its merchants integrated India’s textile industry into commercialised global trade. British textile was factory-made after India was colonised. British cloth was cheaper than Indian cloth by the early 1800s, and as people’s tastes changed, the Indian cloth industry died. Many government and industry professionals adopted British clothing.
European colonialists also changed African and other foreigners’ attire. European capital influenced sishweshwe and Igbo clothing. African, Middle Eastern, and Indian textile industries died after importing cloth from elsewhere. Western dress won because it was used to civilise non-Western nations.
Conclusion
Traditional costume is blended with various cultural practices to commemorate amadlozi with precision. South Africans celebrate amadlozi and dress. European commercialism supported synthetic cultures that helped commercialise African culture. Large retailers like Shoprite, Woolworths, and others have struggled in other African countries without a captive market like the South African consumer market. Shoprite and Woolworths left Nigeria years ago.
Re phahlela badimo! During siyashada, siyathwasa, and siya engomeni, demand for groceries, clothes, and animals rises. The South African economy and amadlozi are intertwined.
Africans must decide whether to retain amadlozi for their own advantage or maintain the status quo. They should exploit the huge “African culture” business. Dismissing much commercialism in “African culture” could help black South African culture modernise and revolutionise.
Building sustainable lives and sub-economies in townships and rural regions, but absorption into the white economy even through indigenous practices, is the priority now. Real political and economic freedom must be addressed.
Re leboha badimo le Modimo …
Siyayibanga le economy!
Siyabonga Hadebe is an independent commentator on socio-economic, politics and global matters. The views expressed here are his own.