Guy with Blonde Bird

Recently we set off on what would have been called in the old days a safari, which is a Swahili word for long journey and used extensively in east African countries. The word conjures up images of adventures, where great white hunters would head out into the African savanna with rich, noble guests and 1,000 African porters in tow. The first safari as we know it is credited to Major Sir William Cornwallis Harris, who in 1836 set off like us from Cape Town to observe animals and landscapes. He travelled north to Grahamstown where he resupplied and then tramped across South Africa to Kuruman where he met Moffat, the Scottish missionary father in law of one David Livingstone. Harris set the model for all the safaris of our childhood memories, it was he who developed the safari suit and it was he who started his day early at sun rise walked until mid afternoon, when he rested before a hearty evening meal followed by chats around a large fire with spirits and tobacco.

Many safari’s followed in the years after Harris, all following and developing his model, turning it into 5 star adventure travel. At the start of the twentieth century Harris’s safari changed dramatically with the arrival of the “White Hunter”. These were people from Europe and America who organised safaris for rich fee paying guests during which many, many animals were shot for sport, with the white hunter supplementing his income by selling ivory. Soon the British Colonial Government jumped onto the bandwagon and started charging for EndFragmentStartFragmentlicenses to kill the animals. So everyone was happy, rich tourists got the thrill of a life time in complete comfort, the white hunters made a fortune and became famous in their own right and the British Government made money out of the whole thing. Obviously the big losers were the animals of Africa, who instead of roaming the open savannahs could be found more and more poking their head out of the walls of rich peoples houses around the world.

The BBC wildlife programs further embedded the image of safaris into our thinking. Soon after the dawn of TV the BBC had people out in the wilds of Africa, dressed in khaki, driving Land Rovers and making scratchy films about the animals. Our safari was different from those featured in those early BBC programs, in as much as we did not have a trusty Land Rover. We had instead an even trustier Toyota, called by many as the “King of Africa” and for that matter the king of South East Asia, Australasia and the north and south polar caps. Not to mention every modern day war zone from Libya to Afghanistan, where it is the wheels of choice for every brand of terrorist, freedom fighter and Arab Springer. Come to think about it the concept of a trusty Land Rover is about as much a myth as that other African legend, Tarzan. He was the guy who was bought up by apes in the jungle, yet had an Oxford English accent, could swim an Olympic qualifying time for the 100 meters freestyle and managed to pull an attractive blond bird.

I know a guy who has a business renting fully kitted out overland vehicles to tourists, who flood into Africa in pursuit of that safari adventure. He has a fleet of Land Rovers and a handful of Toyota's. He told me that he has to have Land Rovers as the tourists insist upon them, as it is part of their dream, it is what they were bought up watching on the TV as young kids. It’s a very powerful image that is burnt into their memory and so when they get the chance to come to Africa and play the role of the great white hunter they want a Land Rover to do it in. I asked him why then has he got a handful of Toyota's and he told me they are to firstly tow the Land Rovers back every time they break down and to give to the tourists when their Land Rover breaks down, so that they can complete their dream trip.

So it seems in modern Africa Land Rover is not the best vehicle to dream about, but was it ever? Sometime ago I read a very interesting article about two young guys who in the early 1960’s decided to drive from Johannesburg to London, before settling down to a working life. They planned their route, which involved driving straight across the Sahara desert and got their kit together. When it came to choosing a vehicle in which to complete this trip, you may have thought that a trusty Land Rover maybe right at the top of their list, with its 4 x 4 capability. But they actually chose a 2 wheel drive VW campervan as they felt the Land Rover was so unreliable. So it seems that Land Rover never was that reliable or trusty and just like the Oxford English speaking wild man with a blond on his arm, its all a bit of a myth.EndFragment

Back to our safari, we left Cape Town and a day and a half later we were 1,000 kilometers north in an area called the Transkei, which is both very attractive and historic. We often hear how history shapes the future and this has never been more so than in the Transkei. The name itself means across the Kei River and so it is literally the land situated the other side of the river Kei. The Transkei was created during the apartheid years and was one of the master plans dreamt up by the white National Party (NP) to make sure the best bits of South Africa remained white. You see the NP set up a number of what they called Homelands and Transkei was one of those, the plan entailed giving these Homelands independence to a degree, with their own leaders, laws and infrastructure, they then set about relocating the black population into these homelands, often by force. Now the twist in this was that as the black Africans were now residents of independent Homelands, they were not residents of white South Africa and so to work in or move about in white South Africa they had to have papers and a bloody good reason. In effect the NP had made the black population illegal immigrants in their own country.

How has this shaped the country I hear you say, well as you move into the Transkei time seems to take a quick step backwards. Here there is no evidence of commercial farming; here the animals he owns judge every man’s wealth. So without commercial farming, there are less fences and less infrastructure, which leaves vast open areas of land. Because every man has animals, there are lots of small villages rather than towns or cities, scattered across the open land. Which allows everyone to be close to his or her animals and those animals have direct access to land. It is in many ways an idyllic rural, pastoral life style, with little human impact on the land. Which seems at the opposite end of the scale to most of the former white areas of South Africa, where man has made massive impacts on the land through commercial farming, roads, fences, utility supplies, towns and cities.

All the villages look neat, everyone looked healthy and you had to think why would anyone leave this to come and live in a township in Cape Town? Townships are basically just city living versions of the villages in the Transkei, the actual buildings are very similar, the facilities are probably about the same and it was only the available land that differed. That is very much the same with most countries, in England if you live in the country the chances are you will have a house surrounded by land, whether you own that land or not is not the point. But if you live in one of the big cities the chances are you will have a very similar house to that in the country, but with next to no land around it or indeed anywhere to be seen. So a township is urban living shack style. But why would anyone move to urban townships and I guess the answer is work, although that work may well be in the same class as our friend Tarzan and the trusty Land Rover, a myth. EndFragment

In the Transkei I should think money is a very rare commodity, people grow their food, milk their cows, barter and trade. Above all they own their own homes and the land around them. Balance that with township living and paid work. Sadly earning a wage and the prospect of bettering your life in a township is in many cases a distant African dream, another myth. But urban living not only brings with it the prospect of work and wages, but also extra cost. You have to pay for transport, you have to pay for your home, you have to have clothing for all occasions, you will need to buy all your food as you cannot grow it or milk it and kids have to go to schools which aren’t free. Then there is the keeping up with Jones effect, you will want a TV, mobile phone, a car and holidays back in the Transkei to see the family all of which is expenditure you would not have or need if you actually lived back home in the Transkei. So it seems to be a catch 22 situation where people move to try and better themselves and in effect are perhaps just earning enough to survive in the urban environment and no more. So my question again is, why would anyone leave the Transkei to come to a city township, to me the math's doesn’t add up and the way of life certainly doesn’t.EndFragment