Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software

http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

The final pages of this document might be a little hard to handle! But, sometimes you
have to see it to believe it! It is asking the same question, of us all. Are we not all subject
to this inevitable violation, to some degree or another, that will eventually consume the
‘Takers’ also! Might I remind you, the ‘Takers’, historically leave desert. Whilst God’s
garden is always striving to cover the soil (Mother), and is as diverse as the climate
allows. By the respectful management of these resources, given to us all, we are able to
provide abundance, indefinitely. And our children are happy. By the ‘Taking’ of
everything, by the exploitation, of everything Living to dead, gone, shipped off
somewhere. Our Children go hungry! All livings things in this life, needs soil. Soil,
cannot happen when we keep indiscriminately killing everything. How is this happening,
when the answers to a wholesome future for ourselves, other selves, and our neighbors,
are about listening to each other, without judgment, but discernment, tempered by the
love of our fellow man.

FOR the PAKEHA.

A CIVILIZED VISITOR?

And in the eighteenth year, the two and twentieth day of the first month, there was talk in
the house of Nabuchodonosor (Nebuchadnezzar...Daniel, chapter 4), king of the
Assyrians, that he should, as he said, AVENGE HIMSELF ON ALL THE EARTH.

So he called unto him all his officers and all his nobles, and communicated with them his
secret counsel, AND CONCLUDED THE AFFLICTING OF THE WHOLE EARTH OUT
OF HIS MOUTH.
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

Then they decreed to destroy all flesh, that did not obey the commandment of his mouth.

The Scythians used scorched earth tactics against King Darius the Great of Persia.
Nomadic herders, the Scythians retreated into the depths of the Steppes, destroying food
supplies and poisoning wells. As a result, Darius the Great was forced to concede defeat.
A large number of his troops died from starvation and dehydration.

British use of scorched earth policies in war was seen as early as the sixteenth century in
Ireland where it was used by English commanders such as Walter Devereux and Richard
Bingham. Its most infamous use was by Humphrey Gilbert during the wars against the
native Irish in Munster in the 1560s and 1570s, actions which earned the praise of the
poet Edmund Spenser in his A View of the Present State of Ireland in 1596.

Persians also used scorched earth tactics against the invading Turks during the long
Ottoman-Iran wars between 1578-90

William T. Sherman’s First Campaign of Destruction

He contended that the United States and its representatives had the right to
“remove and destroy every obstacle—if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every
particle of property, everything that to us seems proper…[and] that all who do not aid are
enemies, and we will not account to them for our acts.” This last line was reminiscent of
his statement in August 1862, when he had warned that those who resided in the areas
near partisan troop action were “accessories by their presence and inactivity to prevent
murders and destruction of property.”

Significantly, the Hawkesbury/Nepean River conflicts and the subsequent decimation of

the Aboriginal population cannot be accounted for by disease and alcohol but principally
by Europeans violence. European dominance was established by superior weaponry,
mobility and numbers. However, it is worth noting that: Resistance, for the Aboriginals,
was a matter of survival. As such, the Aboriginals conducted what appears to have been a
well-organised and determined campaign to drive out the Europeans. (Morris 1978, p78-
80)

Professor D.J. Mulvaney, professor of per-history at the Australian National University,

said the recent evidence meant that more than 600,000 Aborigines died in the years after
European settlement.
"Some Europeans were also murdered by Aborigines. But the settlers killed about 20
Aborigines for every white person who was murdered."
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

The theory of divide and rule was also applied by the government, who clearly saw the
advantage of using the friendly tribes who were often the enemy to the rebellious tribes
and could be relied on to fight with the skill and ruthlessness of their own countrymen. In
many ways the aims of the loyalist Maori (Kupapa) were no different to those rebelling.
All wanted to ensure the survival of their land and retention of heritage.

In proportion to New Zealand population at the time, the fights were large in scale. About
18000 British troops were mobilized for the biggest campaign. This force was fighting
against the Maori population who totaled less than 80000 men, women and children.

In 1868, Tūhoe sheltered the Māori leader Te Kooti, and for this were subjected to a
scorched earth policy in which their crops and buildings were destroyed and their people
of fighting age were captured.

During the wars with Native American tribes of the American West, under Carleton's
direction, Kit Carson instituted a scorched earth policy, burning Navajo fields and homes,
and stealing or killing their livestock. He was aided by other Indian tribes with long-
standing enmity toward the Navajos, chiefly the Utes.

Lord Kitchener applied this policy during the later part of the Second Boer War (1899-
1902) when the British failed to get the better of the Boers on the battlefield. This took
the form of the destruction of farms in order to prevent the fighting Boers from obtaining
food and supplies, and to demoralise them by leaving their women and children homeless
and starving in the open. When this proved unsuccessful, they herded the Boer women
and children into concentration camps where conditions were appalling and disease and
death was rife.

.
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

The German forces, forced to retreat due to overall strategic situation, covered retreat
towards Norway by devastating large areas of northern Finland using scorched earth
tactics. More than one-third of the dwellings in the area were destroyed, and the
provincial capital Rovaniemi was burned to the ground. All but two bridges in Lapland
were blown up and roads mined[3]. In Northern Norway which was at the same time
invaded by Finnish forces in pursuit of the retreating German army in 1944, the Germans
also undertook a scorched earth policy, destroying every building that could offer shelter,
thus interposing a belt of "scorched earth" between themselves and the allies[4].

Throughout the 60s, the US employed herbicides (chiefly Agent Orange), as a part of its
herbicidal warfare program Trail Dust to destroy crops and foliage in order to expose
possible enemy hideouts and to deny food to the enemy. Napalm was also extensively
used for such purposes.

European settlement had altered the Aborigines from free, assured people, held
together by a strong sense of community obligation and sharing networks, to a
scattered group of dependents, relying on the hand-outs of a non-Aboriginal society.

It was Queen Isabella in particular, who was receptive to Columbus’s plan and agreed to
finance his enterprise, to grant him the titles he requested along with one-tenth of all
revenues from his discoveries.

What was viewed by the Europeans as a discovery of new territory was, from the
point of view of the native inhabitants of these lands, an invasion.

Influenced by the Spanish Inquisition, Cortés and his men firmly believed it was their
Christian duty to invade and annex the ‘Indies’ in order to bring ‘heathen souls’ to God.
His conquest of Mexico was often portrayed as ‘the last of the Crusades’. … Thus did
Cortés view himself as leading ‘the Last Crusade’ into Mexico, bringing heathen souls to
God, and, of course, their riches to himself as a foretaste of his divine reward.
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

By accommodating the white man's presence into their beliefs, the Aborigines were
able to resist, even ignore, the attacks on their behaviour of the Europeans who, on the
one hand, put forward Christian laws and codes of behaviour, but on the other hand,
disobeyed those laws with impunity. This was unacceptable within the Aboriginal
system of values and beliefs.

Europeans did not understand the concept that the Maori lived by in relation to land
governorship.

`We do not own the land, The land owns us'

The continuing destruction of indigenous people is a global human rights problem.

Today, tens of millions of Aboriginal people reside in dozens of countries around the
world (Hitchcock and Twedt, 1997, p 374).

Whether called native or tribal peoples, First Nations or the Fourth World, many live
under the threat of annihilation. During the twentieth century, dozens of states
implemented policies intended to physically destroy indigenous populations. In the age of
the UN Genocide Convention, signatory nations waged campaigns of genocide against
the Cham of Cambodia, indigenous peoples in East Timor and the Amazon basin, Iraqi
Kurds, the Maya of Guatemala, and others. Today, perpetrators employ sophisticated
weapons delivery systems, advanced communications equipment, and overwhelming
firepower to kill indigenous people. No evidence suggests a waning in this trend.

The pattern divides into three phases. Colonists initiate the first by invasion. Economic
and political frictions then develop between the two groups as they struggle for limited
resources and political power. Unable to compete with the invaders’ technology, arms,
and wealth, the indigenous people find their economy fundamentally threatened and basic
political rights denied under the settler regime.

A fundamental issue is how humans stay within the productive limits of their supporting
ecosystem. While most would agree that such adaptation should be possible through the
application of knowledge and wisdom, history does not support such a rational view and,
in fact, war is virtually universal in human societies as a means of resolving conflicts
arising from various sources of maladaptation (Keeley, 1996).

Victors write history, and, in the final phases of frontier genocide,

perpetrators create a myth to excuse their crimes. By claiming that so-called “primitive”
peoples and cultures are fated to vanish when they come into contact with white settlers,
a deadly supposition emerges: the extinction of indigenous people is inevitable and
thus killing speeds destiny.
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

“The native who did not care to work, and yet did not want to do without worldly goods,
eventually was ruined; meanwhile, the industrious white man prospered. This was just a
natural process” (Leutwein, 1907, p 372).

requiring a shock such as war. It appears that many, even most, societies have been
defined by war, and that the organization of a society for the possibility of war has
been its principal political stabilizer. The victors who emerged from the ashes of war
have sown the seeds that would produce subsequent tensions, disputes and conflicts.

It often seems that an institutional lack of capacity to adapt to change, or the inertia of
vested interests in the status quo, means that societies inevitably become maladapted over
time, eventually to set them on a different course (Edgerton, 1992).

Plomley estimates that in 1824 there were still 1,500 Aborigines (Plomley, 1992, p 29).
By 1835 fewer than 300 survivors remained.

Beginning in 1826, the Aboriginal Tasmanians fought a desperate guerilla war.

The reason for their outrages upon the white inhabitants (was) that they and their
forefathers had been cruelly abused, that their country had been taken away from them,
their wives and daughters had been violated and taken away, and that they had
experienced a multitude of wrongs from a variety of sources. (Ryan, 1996, pp 121–122)

The people, not content with shooting them in the most treacherous manner in the dark,
had actually cut the woman's arm off and stripped the scalp of her head over her eyes and
finding one of the children only wounded, one of the fellows deliberately beat the infant's
brains out with the end of his muskett... the bodies were left for the natives to view next
morning. (Docker, 1964:75).
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

February 3 1835, when Robinson reported to Arthur: “The entire Aboriginal population
are now removed [to Flinders Island]” (Ryan, 1996, p 170).

Robinson’s project was successful in expatriating the last 300 Aborigines from a home
their ancestors had inhabited for perhaps 35,000 years, but he only facilitated their near
total destruction (Ryan, 1996, pp xxi, 183).

When the Flinders Island camp closed in 1847, only 46 survivors remained (Reynolds,
1995, p 159).

In 1826, the surviving Aborigines, who after the combined depredations caused by
introduced small-pox, syphilis and influenza and by brutalities at the hands of the
colonists, were estimated to be only 65 in number, including men, women and children.
This is in marked contrast to the numerous Aborigines seen in almost every cove during
the first visit to Brisbane Water by Governor Phillip only 38 years before.

Contemporaries appear to have been complacent about continually reducing Aboriginal

numbers; many believed extinction inevitable. The conscience of the European settlers
was untroubled by the disappearance of the Aboriginals. Some regarded it as a blessing
and welcomed it; William Cox asserted that the Aboriginal people would make excellent
manure for crops and that for him was their main function. (Gunson 1974).
The Reverend John Gregory stated, in 1847, that settlers believed the Aboriginals
decreed by God to a position of innate inferiority from which the only escape was an
inevitable extinction. Threlkeld believed the Aboriginals had strayed from God's path and
as a result were doomed. (Gunson 1974)

On February 2, 1848 the United States took possession of California from Mexico. Ten
months later, news of the gold found at Sutter’s Mill triggered a tidal wave of
immigration into the new state. Between 1849 and 1851 alone nearly 250,000 settlers
arrived (Cook, 1970, p 28). These immigrants needed food and triggered an agricultural
explosion that in turn created shock waves of land grabbing. In 1851 the first white
explorers visited the Yuki homeland, in northern California, and in 1854 settlers arrived
to farm and ranch the area’s fertile valleys. Before whites arrived, the Yuki numbered
between 5,000 and 20,000. By 1864, settlement policies and a war of genocide had
reduced them to “85 male[s] and 215 female[s]” (Carranco and Beard, 1981, p 126

Today approximately 100 Yuki live in Mendocino County on the Round Valley Indian
Reservation together with members of five other California Indian nations. Fewer than a
dozen native Yuki speakers remain.

Germans hoisted their flag over the Namibian coast in August 1884. Over the next 19
years settlers slowly trickled into German South West Africa. By 1903 4,674 Germans
lived in the colony, trading with Africans and ranching cattle (Palmer, 2000, p 149). In
1904 the 60–85,000-strong Herero nation rose up against German rule and were defeated
(Irle, 1973, p 52; Leutwein, 1907, p 11; Schwabe, 1907, p 37).
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

The German Army then waged genocide against the defeated, killing 40–70,000 Herero
men, women, and children. Only 15–20,000 out of 60–85,000 Hereros survived the war
and genocide.

Herero political frustration centered on German treatment of Herero women, general

physical abuse, and legal inequality under colonial law. Like Aboriginal Tasmanian and
Yuki attacks, the Herero revolt was met first by warfare, second by a genocidal military
campaign and finally by deadly ethnic gulags.

By 1903, 3,970 European men and only 712 European women lived in Namibia. As in
the Tasmanian and Yuki cases, this gender imbalance led to rapes of indigenous women
by white men. This practice was so common that German settlers had names for it:
Verkafferung, or going native, and Schmutzwirtschaft, or dirty trade (Rohrbach, 1907, p
243).

Genocide in Tasmania, California, and Namibia began with a common lie: the assertion
that the land was “empty,” “unclaimed,” or should be “made empty.” The British in
Australia employed a doctrine of terra nullius, or “land where nothing exists,” while in
the US settlers and their advocates spoke of vacuum domicilium, or “empty domicile,” to
justify invasion and expropriation (Stannard, 1992, pp 234–235). In Namibia, colonists
enacted policies of tabula rasa, or “creating a map scraped smooth,” to facilitate
dispossession and ethnic cleansing (Drechsler, 1966, pp 168–169). The concept of tabula
rasa asserted that indigenous people should be removed and that these people had
minimal moral claim to the land. If white settlers saw no European-style agriculture or
Western trappings of civilization, they often deemed an area “empty” to rationalize
conquest and settlement.

Under the British doctrine of terra nullius, Aboriginal Tasmanians had no right to
territory because they were not using the land in a European fashion and had no legal title
under British law. Likewise, under the vacuum domicilium doctrine, the California
legislature excluded the Yuki from state citizenship and thus legal land ownership. The
German government did grant land titles to Hereros, but utilized the “empty” land
concept as part of the rationale behind Chancellor von Caprivi’s 1893 claim that “the
territory is ours, it is now German territory and must be maintained as German territory”
(Bley, 1971a, p 611). Later, the Germans justified policies designed to transfer land from
blacks to whites with the same concept. The idea of “empty” or unclaimed land provided
the legal and intellectual framework for genocide by rationalizing dispossession and by
suggesting that native people were less worthy of land ownership and thus essentially less
human than white settlers.

a new word has been added to the military vocabulary: “ecocide,” the destruction of
the environment for military purposes clearly deriving from the “scorched earth”
approach of earlier times.

Westing (1976) divides deliberate environmental manipulations during wartime into two
broad categories: those involving massive and extended applications of disruptive
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

techniques to deny to the enemy any habitats that produce food, refuge, cover, training
grounds and staging areas for attacks; and those involving relatively small disruptive
actions that in turn release large amounts of “dangerous forces” or become self-
generating. An example of the latter is the release of exotic micro-organisms or spreading
of landmines (of which over 100 million now litter active and former war zones around
the world—Strada, 1996).

The conclusion is not surprising: war is bad for biodiversity.

As Thacher (1984: 12) put it, “Trees now or tanks later.”

Aborigines Protection Acts.

All Aborigines, whether nomadic or civilised, and also all half-castes, are liable to be
"protected" by the Aborigines Protection Boards, and their legal status is defined by
Aborigines Protection Acts of the various States and of the Commonwealth.
Thus we are for the greater part deprived of ordinary civil legal rights and citizenship,
and we are made a pariah caste within this so-called democratic community.
The value of the Aborigines Protection Acts in "protecting" Aborigines may be
judged from the fact that at the 1933 census there were no Aborigines left to protect
in Tasmania; while in Victoria there were only 92 full-bloods, in South Australia
569 fullbloods, in New South Wales1, 034 full-bloods.
The Aborigines of full-blood are most numerous, and most healthy, in the northern parts
of Australia, where white "protection" exists in theory, but in practice the people have to
look after themselves. But already the hand of official "protection" is reaching out to
destroy these people in the north, as it has already destroyed those in the southern States.
We beg of you to alter this cruel system before it gets our 36,000 nomadic brothers and
sisters of North Australia into its charitable clutches!

What "Protection" Means.

The "protection" of Aborigines is a matter for each of the individual States; while those
in the Northern Territory come under Commonwealth ordinances.
This means that in each State there is a different "system", but the principle behind
the Protection Acts is the same in all States, Under these Acts the
Aborigines are regarded as outcasts and as inferior beings who need to be
supervised in their private lives by Government officials. No one could deny
that there is scope for the white people of Australia to extend sympathetic, or real,
protection and education to the uncivilised blacks, who are willing and eager to learn
when given a chance.

The Aboriginal Protection Board, which has "protected" the full-bloods of New South
Wales so well that there are now less than a thousand of them remaining, has thus
recently acquired the power extend a similar "protection" to half-castes, quarter-castes,
and even to persons with any "admixture" of Aboriginal blood whatever. Its powers are
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

so drastic that merely on suspicion or averment it can continue its persecuting protection
unto the third, fourth and fifth generation of those so innocently unfortunate as to be
descended from the original owners of this land.

The effect of the foregoing powers of the Aborigines Protection Board in New South
Wales is to deprive the Aborigines and half-castes (and other "admixtures") of ordinary
citizen rights.
By a curious twist of logic, the Aborigines of New South Wales have the right
to vote - for the State Parliament! They are considered worthy of the franchise, but
not worthy of other citizen rights. They are officially treated either as a menace to
the community (similar to criminals) or as incapable of looking after themselves
(similar to lunatics) - but yet they are given a vote!

The Native Land Act of 1862 bypassed the condition set out in the Treaty of Waitangi,
which stated that Maori land could only be sold to the government. It made selling
directly to settlers from Maori easier. This affected many parts of New Zealand that had
not been involved in the wars. It was justified by the claim that it would enable Maori to
obtain a better price for their land. In practice, however, it leads to many unjust purchases
and false land claims. Even if the Maori owners took a case to the Land Court and were
successful with their case they often had to sell their land to pay for the court costs. In
reality the act was set up to destroy the tribal systems which slowed progress for the
European settlements. Maori were to be assimilated.

All of these initiatives were intended to help the Maori people to assimilate into European
culture. For a time the future of the Maori people and their culture seemed bleak.
The population declined due to illness and high infant mortality rates and many
Europeans thought of them as a dying race. The Maori people and culture did survive
though and began to flourish again in the later part of the twentieth century.

Is This OUR ATTITUDE?

Pygmies stand tall over rainforest logging 5:00AM Tuesday October 16, 2007
By Jonathan Brown

The rumble of giant machinery heralds the

arrival of loggers deep in the heart of the
Congo rainforest. For the pygmy tribes who
have inhabited this thick jungle for
millennia, the sound of the advancing
column is the sound of encroaching hunger
and the loss of a way of life stretching back
hundreds of generations.
Forty million people in the Congo, including
600,000 pygmies, depend on the rainforests for
survival.
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

As well as retaining nearly 8 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide, the rainforest is
home to a vast biodiversity, including the bonobo apes unique to the Congo river basin.

. There is mounting optimism that when the representatives of some of Africa's most
remote tribes arrive in the US capital, they can capitalize on outrage over the bank's plan
to turn 60,000sq km of pristine forest over to European logging companies.

It is claimed that far from bringing development and riches, logging is causing
widespread malnutrition, especially among children. Felling is also blamed for re-igniting
violence in the region, which is still recovering from years of civil war.

He said: "When the logging companies arrive, they restrict our right to use the forest and
forbid us access to vast areas. They cut pell-mell, with no consideration for the trees we
depend on for caterpillars to eat, or the places where we can find mushrooms or get
honey. We have no say about whether a tree should stand or fall."

Plans to allow industrial logging in the Congo were drawn up after the World Bank
moved back into the country in 2002, aiming to turn it into Africa's main timber
producer. While the civil war cost millions of lives, peace has brought with it a new
threat as Western companies return to exploit the nation's new-found stability. Roads are
being driven through the eastern forest and, to the west, railways and ports are being
upgraded around Kinshasa, the capital.

Campaigners fear that over-development, coupled with widespread corruption signals the
beginning of the end for the rainforest.

The 8th of March is the International Women's day. Congo Panorama calls for a special tribunal for
Congo to try those responsible of crimes against humanity, especially Museveni and Kagame who
used rape as a weapon of war in Congo.

Rape has become a defining characteristic of the five-year war in the DRC, according to Anneke Van
Woudenberg, the Congo specialist for Human Rights Watch. So, too, has mutilation of the victims.

"Last year, I was stunned when a 30-year-old woman in North Kivu had her lips and ears cut off and eyes gouged
out after she was raped, so she couldn't identify or testify against her attackers. Now, we are seeing more and
more such cases," she says.

As the troops of occupation from Rwanda and Uganda constantly sought new ways to terrorize, their barbarity
became more frenzied.
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

I, too, was sickened by what I saw and

heard. In three decades of covering
war, I had never before come across
the cases described to me by Congolese
doctors, such as gang-rape victims
having their labia pierced and then
padlocked.

"They usually die of massive infection,"

I was told.

Based on personal testimonies collected

by Human Rights Watch, it is estimated
that as many as 30 percent of rape
victims are sexually tortured and
mutilated during the assaults, usually
with spears, machetes, sticks or gun
barrels thrust into their vaginas.

Increasingly, the trigger is being pulled. About 40 percent of rape victims, usually the younger ones, aged 8 to
19, are abducted and forced to become sex slaves.

"Congo's been bleeding to death for five

centuries," John le Carr has a character
declare in his new Africa novel, The Mission
Song:

"Fucked by the Arab slavers, fucked by

their fellow Africans, fucked by the United
Nations, the CIA, the Christians, the
Belgians, the French, the Brits, the
Rwandans, the diamond companies, the
gold companies, the mineral companies,
half the world's carpetbaggers, their own
government in Kinshasa, and any minute
now they're going to be fucked by the oil
companies. Time they had a break . . ."

Time they had a break, indeed.

But no way! According to the latest report of the UN Experts on the ill gal exploitation of
Congo's natural and mineral resources, 95% of gold produced in Congo go to Kampala. 30.000
Congolese work in gold mines for $5 a day. 7 to 10 cargo planes, full of gold, diamond, coltan
and tin (10 tons per plane) fly daily from Goma airport to Rwanda and Uganda> Congo's gold
from South Kivu goes to Burundi. What a shame!

De Beers started the brutally racist laws of apartheid to protect its lucrative
diamond trade. It grew rich and powerful, and the men who owned and ran it
grew rich and powerful directly through the brutality of apartheid.
Apartheid in Africa has ended, but their heirs get to keep the money, and the
power. Just as the heirs of the victims of apartheid get to keep what they inherit.
The linkage of diamonds with engagement and marriage is recent, an artificial
tradition instigated and perpetuated by the diamond industry; as is the economic
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

value of diamonds themselves, which are only as valuable as they are rare, and
desired.
De Beers implicitly owns the Botswana government and is 50% shareholder in
Debswana Diamond with it. Botswana is the largest producer of uncut diamonds
in the world.
De Beers, through its surrogates, has forcibly evicted the Kalahari Bushmen from
their ancestral homelands, and resettled them in cinderblock "camps" where they
are deteriorating spiritually and physically. The latest legal denial of their claims
issued by the wholly-owned de Beers subsidiary Botswana government was
accompanied by testimony from a government prosecutor that the Bushmen are
being moved to "protect them from game".
An ecologist testified in a Botswana court to what every middle-class middle
school kid in the US knows - that the Bushmen are good for the game, and the
game are good for the Bushmen.
They're being evicted for the same reason apartheid was instituted, to protect the
diamond industry.
The Bushmen have lived in the Kalahari for 20,000 years.

this is the nastiest and least excusable case I have ever come across.” In the end, it may not
matter whether the Bushmen were moved as the result of misguided paternalism or a grab for
mineral wealth. What is beyond dispute is that the Bushmen -- hunter-gatherers now
marooned in a cash economy and separated from their places of spiritual power -- have been
driven to the brink of cultural extinction.

To make sure there was no coming back, water holes were sealed over. Tshara Johannes
showed me around the now empty meadow where the village had stood for generations. "The
people were just taken and thrown into the trucks,” he said. Then he repeated over and over,
"They just poured the water out on the ground.” In the Kalahari, to dump water is to sentence
someone to death.

President Mogae himself recently said the relationship was less like a marriage and more like
"Siamese twins.” Survival International's director, Stephen Corry, is more blunt: "Botswana is
a company town, owned by De Beers.”

Despite their insistence of altruistic intentions behind relocating the Bushmen, however,
government officials are blunt about where cultural heritage and wildlife preservation fall on
the list of national priorities. "If we can discover a lot of diamond deposits in any part of this
country,” Minister of Local Government Michael Tshipinare told me over a cup of tea, "whether
it is in a game reserve or outside, and it is minable -- we're going to mine it.”

Mass starvation in Zimbabwe has not discouraged the British government from funding a campaign which
promotes anti-white "land reform" in Africa. The UK's Department for International Development gave
£338,000 last year in "civil society" funding to support War on Want, a hard-Left campaign group formerly run
by George Galloway. www.samizdata.net/.../cat_african_affairs.html

http://informant38.blogspot.com/2005/05/having-spent-hundreds-of-millions-of.html
 Generated by Foxit PDF Creator © Foxit Software
http://www.foxitsoftware.com For evaluation only.

http://www.survival-international.org/tribes/bushmen

http://www.survival-international.org/tribes
www.congopanorama.info/

http://www.poemhunter.com/edmund-spenser/