Thursday, 1 November 2018

No 71 - Saving the Amazon?



Sometimes just a brief visit to a place is enough to make one feel deeply emotionally invested in it – in love, even, or at least rivetted with admiration or awe. This has been the case with my own fleeting sojourns in southern Patagonia and in the Amazon forests. In the latter case I wasn’t even in especially deep jungle – a tourist camp not so far from the million-soul city of Manaus, not far beyond the edge of logging operations. But I was instantly, sensuously, in love with the flooded varzea, the sounds of howler monkeys, and the extraordinary sun-patterns of leaves, even with the forbidding spiders and the taste of piranha fish and the military columns of vicious ants.

So it’s with increasing dismay that I read article after article warning of threats to the integrity of the Amazon basin and its astounding diversity of both human and non-human denizens. Some warnings are embedded in global reports, such as that of the World Wildlife Fund, which details how some 60% of non-human biodiversity has been destroyed by human activity in the last few decades. Another report, drawing on extensive satellite-generated data, reveals that only five countries hold some 70% of that biodiversity. One of those countries is Brazil, in which the Amazonian basin largely lies.

A second wave of more sharply localised reports has accompanied the recent presidential election in Brazil, which to the world’s general horror has brought to power a fascistic lunatic, Jair Bolsonaro. He compares himself to the aggressive and ignorant Donald Trump (who himself has spent the last two years rescinding some 76 Clinton- and Obama-era laws designed to protect the US environment – which is also to say, protecting citizens against their own unthinking destructiveness). Bolsonaro has lost no time in expressing support for expanding Amazonia’s agribusiness – in whose financial pocket he nestles – and infrastructural projects into the Amazon. Between the two of them, these leaders constitute a veritable ecological Antichrist.

Bolsonaro and Trump, and their supporters, are of course only the latest spearhead to a long-evolving process. If you thought that Trump was transparently biased against environmental health in appointing an Exxon oil exec to head the Environmental Protection Agency, recall that the two Bush presidents did so, too. And it’s not only hard-right leaders at fault: recall that Brazil’s leftist president Lula da Silva, now in jail for corruption, had also approved a massive hydroelectric dam project on an Amazon tributary – just one of dozens either under construction or planned. (If there is any slowing down of this, it may ironically be because of the revelation of the so-called “Car-Wash” corruption scandal that did for Lula.)

The Amazon has been under siege for a long time, particularly in the so-called Arc of Deforestation, a two thousand-mile swathe from the lower south-western edge of the basin to the north-eastern regions abutting the Atlantic coast. Dam building is just one threat: Brazil has touted itself as the nation of clean hydroelectricity for several decades. This is despite the now manifest problems with such grand, pride-driven nationalistic projects which, from the Colorado to the Ganges, have proven short-lived, destructive and economically inefficient. The US and India have started walking back from big dams, and in January this year an undertaking was made by Brazil, then under Temer, to also slow down on the dams. I am not so confident that Bolsonaro will honour that pledge, whatever the dire ecological effects will be on the basin’s ecosystems, its dependence on annual flooding, its tens of thousands of displaced indigenous people, and its wildlife. The latter can no longer be regarded as merely a frosting of interesting animals for tourists to gape at: they are vitally functional elements in complex ecosystems which constitute one of the world’s greatest carbon sinks and therefore a crucial stabiliser of global climate.

Other threats are just as important, especially agrobusinesses: not only logging and mining, sanctioned and otherwise, and not only conversion to pasture for cattle to supply the hungry northern fast-food chains, but also more nominally benign plantations, especially soybeans, manioc and rice. All involve deforestation, desiccation of wetlands, and human displacement on a huge scale: in one estimate, 52 000 square miles per year.

The fate of the indigenous peoples – groups of whom have remained sheltered from the invasion of modernity until very recently – is central to the trauma, and they are also central players in such resistance as can be marshalled. In the environmental impact studies supposed to mitigate new projects’ effects, Amazonians are routinely simply ignored, the integrity of their lifeways dismissed as irrelevant, their knowledge of their environment either exploited without compensation or derided. Reserves intended to protect them or wildlife comprise a tiny proportion of the whole basin. This is despite Article 225 of Brazil’s Constitution, which states that all citizens have a right to an ecologically balanced environment.

The depth of indigenous knowledge comes across strongly in Wade Davis’s extraordinary account of ethnobotany in the Amazon, One River. As Davis and his ethnobotanical predecessors ranged across the Amazon in tireless searches for – and ‘discovery’ of – literally hundreds of plant species “new to science”, they found tribe after tribe with profound and intricate, both practical and myth-enriched, knowledge of the forest’s plants. Here is just one passage of many:

The children appeared to know everything about plants and were somewhat taken aback by our ignorance. Shyly at first and then in great bursts of enthusiasm they explained that plants were like people, each with its own mood and story. Cacti sleep by night. Mushrooms grow when they hear thunder, lichens only in the presence of human voices. The solitary blossoms of the open field have no feelings for others. Delicate gentians fold up their petals in shame ... All plants have names and are useful ...

This is not just quaint: it is a saving pointer towards an ecology living itself out through us, not being controlled by its human components. Of course one can over-romanticise such lives – people who live in astonishing congruence with plants and animals and insects, all but immune to the physical ills of modernity from heart disease to blood pressure to diabetes, and simply not going anywhere – immune also to the myths of “progress” and “profit” that drive the world’s technological societies. including Brazil’s agro-industrial elites. Nor perhaps can they be preserved in amber; one of Davis’s interlocutors argues that Amazonians, being as intelligently curious about other worlds as any incoming tourist, should have the choice of what to embrace in modernity if they want to.


Fair enough – but most often they have no choice: their forests, and everything they have ever known, is catastrophically burned, cut or flooded away beneath them with neither understanding nor compassion nor compensation.

Davis also shows how profound outsiders’ misunderstanding can be. As it happens, he and his mentor Richard Schultes were mostly intrigued by Amazonians’ sundry use of hallucinogenics and their spiritualist associations. The most common of these is coca, which in its raw chewed form is a mild stimulant but also highly nutritive, and a crucial element in daily life, from mindset to nutrition, from origin myths to shamanic ritual. This fine-tuned and entirely harmless dependence on coca has been totally ignored because, of course, coca is also the source of cocaine. The US-led “War on Drugs” throws out the baby with the bathwater: in trying indiscriminately to destroy coca crops, especially in Colombia, the authorities are waging war on an entire cultural nexus which has been satisfactorily in place for millennia. Little wonder (quite apart from new global drugs-economics) the war is failing.

The short story, in a highly fragmented and conflictual situation (more environmental defenders have been murdered in Brazil than in any other country), is that a massive shift in governmental mindset, policy-making, financial dependencies and enforceable legislation is required. Though the seeds of more fruitful policies exist, such a turnaround seems unlikely. José Heder Benatti is a contributor to a massively detailed volume of essays, tables and maps, Biodiversity in the Brazilian Amazon (2004 - a book Bolsonaro should read carefully, alongside Wade Davis). Benatti makes a rare and gloomy foray into literary philosophy:

The expression “Man is a wolf to man” is well-known. This quotation summarises the ideas of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who argued that man in his natural state was individualistic, profoundly selfish, and with insatiable desires for power, which would only end at death. ... Thus he did not naturally live by cooperation; he was not a social being by nature. Life in society was a pact, artificial and precarious, and insufficient in itself to guarantee peace. For the pact to be honoured and peace secured, it was necessary for individuals to renounce their right to everything and transfer it to a sovereign with absolute powers. ... Leviathan.

Even as indigenous Amazonians seem to prove Hobbes wrong in part concerning the first point, it is in modernity that we seem to have voluntarily given ourselves up to superior powers, whether these manifest as a Zimbabwean dictator, a democratically-elected set of idiots, or the mind-numbing addiction to Samsung and Apple. Benatti goes on:

Man and nature are unable to live ‘naturally’ in harmony – the former will always try to modify, change, or destroy the latter, disrupting the ecological balance and putting ecosystems at risk. Protected areas have to be created in order to ensure a ‘peaceful’ co-existence and the survival of nature. However such a pact of mutual respect can function only if there is a strong absolute State ... an ecological Leviathan.

Benatti might be right, even as globally we wrestle with unruly forms of democratisation that militate against precisely such absolutism – and therefore against sufficiently far-reaching moves to save nature, and our better natures. Perhaps the best hope, though it’s a slow-acting antidote, is a thorough-going re-education – an education that would teach Leviathan, like certain individuals, to fall in love with things strange and beautiful, to treasure something other than itself.


*****

Friday, 12 October 2018

No 70 - Death & Compassion: Elephants in literature book announcement

Death and Compassion: The elephant in southern African literature





Getting mock-charged a couple of times by an elephant in the Zambezi Valley endows one with a weird kind of affection for the great beasts. All right, so I’m a bit strange that way; but decades later, as I spend time watching the tractable elephants interacting in nearby Addo Elephant Park, I find them more fascinating and beautiful than ever. Though I’ve travelled to find elephants from Hwange to Tembe, from Ugab to Knysna, mostly I sit around reading books. So the fruit of my years of interest is not so much a book about elephants, as a book about books about elephants.

Death & Compassion, as far as I know, is the first in-depth study of the role and presence of the elephant in the literatures of Africa south of the Zambezi. Biological and conservation studies, coffee-table books, films and photographic essays of this iconic animal abound, but I propose that various literary genres have also played a crucial role in structuring public attitudes towards elephants (as to the ecology generally). Many attitudes now commonly purveyed by YouTube clips or photographic essays originated in those literatures that predated our technological era. Those attitudes have contributed to the practical treatment of actual elephants – especially in the growth of compassion towards them. Some people go to extraordinary lengths to save an elephant.

But there’s the other side, too – people who have no compassion for elephants at all. From nineteenth-century imperial hunters to today’s ivory poachers, men have slaughtered elephants without a quiver of remorse. In some estimates, today an African elephant is being killed every 15 minutes. They will not last long unless compassion and respect are much, much more effectively deployed.  

I don’t know how to achieve that, but I do think it’s important to understand how this situation – remorseless killing cheek by jowl with compassion – has developed. Literature provides one window onto that understanding.

My study proceeds roughly chronologically, but also by genre, assessing how attitudes towards elephants are embedded in each type of writing.  Each genre raises for me interesting questions. So the book goes something like this:

Introduction: What is compassion? Is it different from pity or empathy? How is compassion different for a fellow-human, for a domesticated animal, and for a wild and potentially dangerous one? What might be the practical effects of compassion in the physical world? This is, I think, a crucial question about the linkages between the imagination and action.

Chapter One: Complex pre-colonial attitudes towards elephants are expressed in our region’s stunning rock art, as well as preserved in folktales and proverbs. However, these attitudes have inevitably been filtered through modern textuality, endlessly repackaged and marketed for current readerships, so they are tricky to assess. Reverence, taboos, food-source – but compassion? Hard to say – or is compassion a more recent invention?

Chapter Two: Imperial-age travelogues by European sojourners between roughly 1680 and 1836 included Sparrman, le Vaillant, Barrow and even Darwin.  Many of these travellers had pretensions to scientific expertise on the Western Enlightenment model, while foreshadowing the hunting manias of the succeeding century. The chapter asks about the growing role of biological science in affecting the treatment of elephants – an unsettling mix of, as le Vaillant put it, “experiments and devastation”.

Chapter Three: This chapter concentrates on the nineteenth-century accounts of the ‘great hunters’ such as Cumming, Bryden, and Selous.  These narratives, like the travelogues, have not much been studied as literary productions, nor the role of the elephant particularly isolated for attention. How far do these accounts go in helping answer the fundamental question: Why do men hunt (elephants) – and are they as remorseless as they seem?

Chapter Four: Some hunters began to write fiction towards the end of the nineteenth century, often repeating the largely uncaring attitudes of the hunting genre, even as it coincided with the onset of more conservation-orientated attitudes. The chapter mostly covers adult fiction of the second half of the twentieth century, including that of Laurens van der Post, Stuart Cloete and Wilbur Smith. Does fiction offer a particular channel for imaginative empathy?

Chapter Five: Attitudes of empathy, bordering on anthropomorphism (a much debated notion), emerge more strongly in stories for youngsters than in the adult fiction. Why is this? How have we have taught and currently teach our youngsters about ecology and wild animals through literature? The chapter concentrates on three novellas for teens, which all raise a further question: What are the connections between imagination, touch, communication and compassion?

Chapter Six: The development of national parks and so-called ‘fortress conservation’ has spawned a genre of writing as distinctive in its features as the hunting-account was: the game-ranger memoir. It begins with Wolhuter and Stevenson-Hamilton in Kruger, and remains popular today. The chapter examines several examples. exploring especially how emergent forms of compassion for elephants intersects with the commercialisation of game-viewing, the rise of animal-rights philosophies, and the controversial issue of ‘culling’.

Chapter Seven: Conservation ethics and increasing biological knowledge of elephants, resulting in a narrowing of the gap between human and elephant consciousness, have brought large numbers of trained scientists or related researchers into the field.  Some have written popularised accounts, all alert in new ways to the limitations of ‘fortress-conservation’ models and to the prevalence of human-elephant conflict in many regions. How do we manage these boundaries? The chapter concentrates on two such memoirs, by Anthony (The Elephant Whisperer), and O’Connell.

Chapter Eight: This is the one chapter that departs from a generic focus, pulling together many of the underlying strands of the previous chapters in examining literatures pertaining to the quasi-mystical elephant populations of Knysna and Addo; these range from Pretorius’ hunting account, through the ‘research memoirs’ of Carter and Patterson, to the fiction of Dalene Matthee. Can a ‘remnant’ like this help focus aspects of past and future attitudes towards threatened elephants more broadly? World-wide, almost all animals are now ‘a remnant’, by their very rarity attracting a particular nuance of compassion.

Chapter Nine: Since emotion is central to the job of poetry, do poems have something specific to offer in delineating compassion for elephants?  Examples range from pre-colonial and indigenous depictions to contemporary offerings by Livingstone, Mann and Salafranca, amongst others.


I can’t pretend to have answered any of these questions comprehensively, but I do believe that if we – the collective of humans, not just some minority of ‘nature-lovers’ – do not seriously think about these kinds of questions, and do not become more effectively compassionate towards all non-human creatures and our shared habitats, not only the elephants will be lost: so will we.
_____________________________________________________________
The book will be available from good bookstores and at

http://witspress.co.za/catalogue/death-and-compassion/

For more info: Contact Wits University Press marketing coordinator, Corina van der Spoel011 717 18700/8705corina.vanderspoel@wits.ac.za

Wednesday, 10 October 2018

No 69 - Climate change: a personal reader


 
Dan Wylie: "Your back yard: 2170"
As I write, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is issuing yet another warning that if humans don’t get their communitarian act together, and cut fossil-fuel burning to a point which will prevent average global temperatures rising by another 1.5 degrees C, we will suffer horrendous and incalculable climate effects. Essentially, they recommend cutting CO2 production in half by 2030 – that’s in 12 years’ time.

Such warnings have been current from the broad scientific community for several decades now, and despite sundry conferences, international agreements, and many innovative technical solutions proposed and in places implemented, the overall trend on the part of governments, big business, and swathes of the general populace has been to ignore them, fail to fulfil promises, or even actively deny there’s a problem at all.

Why? Is it that fossil-fuel commercial interests are just too massive to budge? Is it that the changes are so relatively slow to accumulate that they can be brushed aside as insignificant? Or that the high variability in climate effects at the local level (weather, that is) casts too much doubt on the concept? That scientists are bad at conveying their findings in a publicly persuasive way? All of the above? I recently came upon an article in which a British Minister was quoted as admitting, “The recent rise in temperatures is caused by climate change”. Hooray, the writer crowed, at last someone in a position of authority is actually seeing the light! But it seemed to me that this formulation was wrong: it’s a bit like saying “These floods are caused by an increased volume of water upstream”. The flood is the increased volume; rises in temperature are climate change. It’s not that ‘climate change’ is somehow ‘out there’, a devilish sui generis entity or machinery which can be tackled independently of our daily lives. Perhaps the very phrase is tempting people to shelve the now pervasive advertising to cut your electricity, fuel and water consumption, and so on. 'Climate change' encompasses so vast a global system that we feel helpless in the face of ‘it’. How can I begin to change my lifestyle in a way that can have an impact, or even know what’s really best?

It’s not my aim here to engage in all the debates about causes and effects of global warming. I’m interested rather in another very fundamental question: How is it that I have come to believe that dangerous climate change is indeed under way? After all, I can’t say that I’ve detected any major changes in my own life: another drought, the jasmine blooming early this year, an apparent dip in the number of migrating swallows, more trash? The answer, of course, being of the Bookish Tribe, is that I’ve read stuff, ranging from books to science magazines to blog posts and newspaper articles. But why should I credit any of it? “Do you believe in climate change?” I am sometimes asked, as if it were some religious credo one either subscribes to or not, holus bolus. A more useful question is: “Which view or theory of climate change do you find most persuasive (or not), and why?”  This acknowledges that there is a multiplicity of arguments, and that one’s job is to level one against another and ultimately try to justify one's response. 

Where does one even begin? The literature on the subject is now vast and continuously ballooning, and my own reading is inevitably extremely spotty and probably unconsciously selective. So rather than try to present an argument, alarmist or otherwise, about something I'm a million miles from being an expert in, I’m simply going to jot down some thoughts about the readings I’ve done over the years. You might be tempted to try one or two.

Dan Wylie: "Fate of the Animals"
1. Science in the world

How can I personally “know” that CO2 production is actually climbing, or that 70% of Germany’s winged insects are gone, or anything else I can’t directly observe? Well, someone said so! In our modern techno-world, it’s very likely to be said that the most credible someone will be scientific. “The science says...” is the common phrase – again as if science is some Platonic ideal entity independent of those who practice it. It’s so much more complex than that: scientists of sundry persuasions and specialisations, all drawing on more or less limited data sets, are frequently at odds with one another. Opponents of anthropogenic climate change have used this to full advantage, since they can say, “Oh, but there are studies that show the opposite...” and happily trash something unpalatable as “bad science” though they might have no more qualifications than I have to make any such evaluation.  But this misunderstands how the core scientific community works (excluding those paid by power-lobbies to say what they're told). Because so many scientists from so many fields are involved, weak theories are usually rapidly challenged and superseded. 

What is powerful about the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report  is not just its technical density (which is already way beyond my little brain), but that it correlates the assiduous work of hundreds if not thousands of scientists’ findings, evaluating what measure of agreement or certainty does exist. Agreement is never total, especially when dealing with climate, which is intrinsically a vast, volatile, multidimensional system yielding inevitably imperfect data and therefore the likelihood of varying interpretations. This is even more so when trying to project into the future, where unpredictable effects, especially at local levels, are inevitable. So the IPCC (like most scientists) is extremely careful to accord every assertion a level of probability, ranging from virtually certain to unlikely, and careful gradations in between. As for the future, they make no simple predictions, but present alongside each other at least four different computer-generated model scenarios. Each model comes from a different source, with somewhat different data inputs, depending on what was available and what that team deemed important; therefore each produces somewhat different results or ‘predictions’. The IPCC does not oblige you accept any one of these; they are deeply, impressively cautious.  For the record, even the most pessimistic projections in the previous four 5-yearly IPCC reports have fallen short of what has actually occurred. Even the most optimistic models show that we are in profound global trouble, and unequivocally that human activity is primarily responsible. In the end, I reckon if 90% of the world’s scientists are 90% certain about something, that’s as good as it gets; you would be wise to follow their advice, rather than pinning your hopes on the 10% of dissent (which is what climate-change denialists routinely do).  Of course, you have to have a certain basic faith in the processes of science, flawed, incremental and provisional as they are. Large numbers of people, through ignorance, cultural foundations, or religious belief, accord science no credence at all, even attack it: National Geographic recently ran a cover story entitled “The War on Science”.  In sum, I think the IPCC report, even just its Introduction, is worth looking through, not for any easy answers – there are none – but to get a sense of how they have gone about their work. As a recent Dutch court ruling indicates, that work seems finally to be gaining greater traction on at least some governments’ policies. 

2. Histories of the World

If an inadequate understanding of how science functions emasculates much public debate, so too does inadequate historical knowledge. One set of anti-climate change arguments postulates non-human drivers of change (sunspots, or wobbles in the Earth’s axis, or volcanoes). What history shows, however, is not that such variables do not exist, but that human societies have historically contributed to and responded to them in different ways. All societies have been subject to climatic and environmental factors, and I’ve lumbered through a number of such “environmental histories”, starting with Felipe Fernandez-Armesto’s Civilizations: Culture, ambition and the transformation of nature (2001). More recently, Jared Diamond wowed the world with Collapse (2006), in which he explores why four past civilisations chose (his word) to come to a sorry end. He foregrounds the ways in which societies overextended their use of natural resources, while not excluding other factors. Though wildly popular, Diamond has been trenchantly critiqued for, among other things, ignoring social institutions, economic networks, and examples of human resilience; for blundering into disciplines in which he is inexpert; for drawing big conclusions from thin evidence; and above all for trying to apply those past cases to our present – that is, to hint that we, too, are at the point of collapse.

In fact Collapse was long pre-empted by the more solid, less selective work of Clive Ponting, A Green History of the World (1991, revised 2007). Covering similar territory is Evan Eisenberg’s more conceptual, lyrical, even visionary take on human-nature history, The Ecology of Eden (2004). A little more tightly focussed and persuasively researched, Stephen Solomon’s Water (2015) covers similar ground but shows how deeply societies are shaped by their various regimes of water management – centrally important for our future, obviously. Whatever the arguments within and around these interpretations of past human interactions with natural resources, they all show one thing: our complete dependence upon, and interfusion with, the natural environment. ‘Climate’ and ‘environment’ are not ‘over there’: they are inside our very lungs and hearts, our customs and our institutions. Perhaps most readable of all is Australian Tim Flannery’s The Weather-Makers (2005), who incorporates historical perspectives but organises his material around different biomes. (Flannery has also written terrific environmental histories of North America and, just released, Europe.)

3. The devils of human nature

Why does society seem so resistant to changing in ways that will secure the species’ long-term future? I happen to be reading Wade Davis’s magnificent book about ethnobotanical explorations in the Amazon, One River (first published in 1996). At one point in his absorbing narrative, he encounters an Amazonian native who is using dynamite to kill fish in his river. In response to a question about yields, he says: “’When we started using it, we got lots of fish. Now not so much.’ What about your children, I asked. Without the slightest sign of remorse he calmly said, ‘Oh, they won’t have any fish, but we will.’ Depressingly, maybe that’s just the way we generally are: myopically, haplessly self-serving. We live our lives as we will, or can, or feel we must, and leave the storms of the future for our grandchildren to sort out. That thought provides the title for James Hansen’s Storms of my Grandchildren (2009). It’s rather histrionically subtitled The truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity, but if anyone is a true global expert in climate change, it is Hansen, a self-effacing scientist thrust into public debates and writing because he felt he had to. Since the 1980s he has testified more than once before the US Congress, to little obvious effect: he discovers that governance is a “perverse” world in which “altruistic actions become meaningless”. Storms is a heartfelt autobiographical account of his efforts to persuade government agencies to take the issue seriously. He worries about his grandchildren. And he concludes bluntly: “The picture has become clear. Our planet, with its remarkable array of life, is in imminent danger of crashing. Yet our politicians are not dashing forward. ... Therefore it is up to you.”

The problem of resistance is bigger than just one or two deluded or corrupted governments, or the natural inertia of established lifestyles: it has become core to the entire neoliberal system of globalised capitalism, which is founded on technologies themselves dependent on continuous extraction of non-renewable resources (fossil fuels and minerals), at minimal cost for maximum profit. Globalised capitalism, while it has brought humans innumerable benefits, also intrinsically constitutes a “war on nature” – and ‘development’ has often been couched in terms of warfare. Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything: Capital and the climate (2014), brilliantly unpacks the involuted cultural, ideological and economic struggles underpinning governmental and societal resistance to change, and particularly demonstrates the mind-blowingly cynical lengths to which the petrochemical industry will go in order to deny that they have anything to do with global warming or pollution-related ills.  Bottom line: free-market global capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with planetary health. Something’s got to give – and we might still have some room to choose what that change might be.

Despite the daunting odds, Klein refuses to bow to pessimism, and something of this determined optimism suffuses an earlier take, George Monbiot’s Heat (2006). Monbiot was initially vilified for his views, but he has been proven right more often than not, and now amongst other things writes an energetic column for the Guardian.   Heat is unabashedly argumentative, laying out the parameters of climate change in ways that are numbingly familiar and now scientifically irrefutable. He is an excellent and fearless researcher, is winningly able to admit his own past errors of judgement, and has a gift for putting things into provocative new perspectives:

The problem is compounded by the fact that the connection between cause and effect seems so improbable. By turning on the lights, filling the kettle, taking the children to school, driving to the shops, we are condemning other people to death. We never chose to do this. We do not see ourselves as killers. We perform these actions without passion or intent.
            Many of those things we have understood to be good – even morally necessary – must also now be seen as bad. Perhaps the most intractable cause of global warming is ‘love miles’: the distance you must travel to visit friends and partners and relatives on the other side of the planet. The world could be destroyed by love.

Disputable, but thought-provoking. What’s hopeful is that much of Heat is about solutions – in architecture, in transport, in power generation. Monbiot is clear-eyed about the obstacles, sceptical about the potential of renewable energy sources, and eminently pragmatic. Whether or not you think his ideas are viable, at least he is thinking about what we can actually do without all devolving into a version of quasi-mediaeval poverty.  

4. South Africa’s climate change

A goodly number of writers have written books on our own region’s environmental condition, notably sociologist Jacklyn Cock's The War Against Ourselves: Nature, power and justice (2007). Two books of even heftier and more scholarly nature are Patrick Bond’s Unsustainable South Africa (2002), and David Hallowes’ Toxic Futures: South Africa in the crises of energy, the environment and capital (2011). Both these studies show in uncompromising detail how the South African economy is intimately tied into global capital and highly pollutive extractive industries, with great short-term benefits for some, but with horrendous damage to environmental health, and following the global tendency to concentrate wealth in ways that increase inequality, not solve it. (And this well before the Gupta state capture’ scandal.) Hallowes is drawing on two decades of reports by GroundWork, an independent environmental research group, and reveals a literally toxic relationship between corporations, pollution, power generation, governmental dereliction of legal duties, and rampant profiteering. I suppose Bond and Hallowes are both classifiable as ‘left’-leaning, but I’ve yet to see any comparably detailed and persuasive defence of our industrial trajectory that rises much above the mantra of ‘providing jobs’ and ‘making a profit’, or that adequately addresses modernity’s trick of 'externalising’ its true costs on destruction of both the environment and the livelihoods of the poor. This externalisation - characterised as ‘progress’, ‘growth’ and ‘development’ - in fact employs a creepingly incremental “slow violence”. South African, now US-based academic Rob Nixon’s multi-award winning book, Slow Violence and the environmentalism of the poor (2013), is now a key text for almost anyone working in the field of environmental justice  and ecocriticism – a work of scary brilliance.

By far the most approachable South African book on climate change that I’ve read is Leonie Joubert’s Scorched: South Africa’s changing climate (2006). It’s a chatty but informative work aimed at a general audience, enlivened with illustrations and often amusing anecdotes about Joubert's own researches. She can be charmingly self-deprecating (“It was not my finest moment...” she begins one chapter). This style might annoy some purist scientists, but it’s part of Joubert’s strategy for bringing global warming down out of the stratosphere of economic theory, tables of figures, and the abstruse languages of policy, and into the realm of the immediate and observable. She has a particular gift for revelling in the existence of a particular frog, or the astonishing symbiosis between an ant and a rare butterfly, the fynbos biome’s relationship to fire or the distribution of the quiver tree – and then showing how their existence is being affected by global warming. She travels from the lobsters of the West Coast to the coral reefs of the east; though her focus is on non-human creatures, she also has a chapter on “Food for the human animal” (dealt with more fully in another book), as well as some closing thoughts on the IPCC projections of the time. For the South African general reader, definitely the first port of call.
            South African novelists are also starting to incorporate climate change into futuristic narratives (including my own The Wisdom of Adders). I’d like to leave the final word to the protagonist of Patricia Schonstein’s novella The Master’s Ruse, a passage concerning the fate – and retaliation –  of our oceans, which we all share and depend upon, but deplete and pollute.

Dan Wylie: "Cityscape, 2170"
[A] messianic force ... to redeem the earth from human dominion... used the oceans. It made use of that mass of dead, black water and all the rubbish and filth that burdened it. Cataclysmic shifting of tectonic plates created tsunamis, which slammed the shorelines, tossing dolosse aside and pouring through coastal cities and town. They engulfed skyscrapers and highways, drowning their human prey in the very oils and solvents that had brought about oceanic demise.

I don’t know about a “messianic” force, but these events are already happening. If we are not to fulfil this imagining, what are we to do?

*****


Saturday, 29 September 2018

No.68 - Marilyn Monroe, "The Misfits" and the animals

Pretty far down on my personal list of Items of Negligible Interest – somewhere just above trade stats for Argentinian tomatoes and junior school netball scores from Uttar Pradesh – is the life of Marilyn Monroe, trashy, glitzy and tragic a phenomenon though she is.

It was even a while before I recognised her when I accidentally got caught up in her final completed film, John Huston’s The Misfits (1961). I was intrigued by the way the light fell on Clark Gable’s rugged visage, a certain amusement in seeing so young an Eli Wallach, a certain stilted grace in that period’s acting style, so theatrical compared to today’s naturalistic mumbling. But most interesting to me was the prominent role of the animals.

In the film, Monroe plays the role of Roslyn Taber, a troubled but vivacious woman who goes to Reno, Nevada to get a quickie divorce, as one did; and ends up under the wing of Gay Langland (Gable), a somewhat ageing cowboy who hoicks her off to a half-built house in the Nevada desert which belongs to ex-Air Force pilot and widower Guido Racanelli (Wallach). Later they are joined by another dislocated individual, Perce Howland (Montgomery Clift). Each nursing amorous designs upon the suddenly liberated Roslyn, they embark on a last manly adventure, running down some of the few remaining wild mustangs  in the Nevada hills. Anything’s better than “wages”, apparently.

Much commentary has highlighted the way the film jibes with Monroe’s own well-known love of animals, which was less activist than adoring of pets – a basset, a parakeet, a seldom-ridden horse, and most famously a Maltese poodle, a gift from Frank Sinatra, which she named, because of the latter’s connection with that illustrious outfit, Mafia, or Maf. “Dogs never bite me,” Monroe is famously quoted as saying, “Just humans.” And again:  “I like animals. If you talk to a dog or a cat, it doesn't tell you to shut up.” When, as late as 1993, the film’s screenwriter, playwright Arthur Miller (The Crucible, Death of a Salesman), received a Classic Film Award for The Misfits, it was Monroe’s love of horses he spoke about. Perhaps a little like Monroe herself, Roslyn cares, feels others’ distress as her own, “hooked into the whole thing,” as Guido says; her “gift for life” alternately infuriates and allows the men to open up, but also makes her preternaturally vulnerable, belonging nowhere.

The Roslyn/Monroe congruence is unsurprising, given that the role was specifically written for Monroe by Miller, then her third husband. Miller had himself gone to Reno to divorce his previous wife, and met up with some of those ageing mustangers. He had also written a vignette, “Please Don’t Kill Anything”, in which a Monroe-like character runs along a beach, picking up fish rejected by the fishermen and throwing them back into the sea. Monroe certainly stimulated in Miller this animal-saving theme, which he incorporated into a short story, “The Misfits”, published in Esquire in 1957. The story was subtitled “Chicken feed: the last frontier of the quixotic cowboy”, because the mustangs were indeed destined for slaughtering and rendering into dog and chicken feed. The last mustangers are “unreconstructed originals”, as James Goode called them, “the last real men left on this earth”, the film character Isabelle Steers (Thelma Ritter) says – “and as unreliable as jack-rabbits.” They were as much misfits as the straggling horses, the remnants of great wild herds that by 1946 had been reduced to handfuls. This was the basis for the screenplay which Miller worked up with Huston, though there would be significant differences. (Also set in this period, incidentally, was another Miller story,  "The Bees", in which an upwardly-mobile house-owner battles to rid his home of bees, bombing them with DDT and sulphur dioxide; the mass poisoning was clearly a synecdoche of suburbia’s sprawling invasion of the natural world.)

Film critics have always been deeply divided about the quality of The Misfits – “a sparky but rather shallow story of emotional frailty”, Timeout opined; ecocritic Cheryll Glotfelty
considers it “an illuminating period piece, documenting the transition from a frontier to an urban West [and] a sensitive treatment of human ageing”. Most observers were as fascinated by its real-life back-stories: the already-crumbling Miller-Monroe marriage; her earlier miscarriage, her unreliability and rehab, and dissatisfaction with the rather dilly, patronising role Miller had penned for her; Huston’s alcoholism that put him to sleep in his director’s chair; tensions between Gable and Wallach. Most of all, the so-called “curse”: the fact that Gable was dead of a heart attack just 12 days after the film wrapped in November 1960, Monroe 18 months later of a barbiturates overdose, and Clift in 1965 aged only 46. (Wallach, in contrast, continued acting for decades, dying in 2014.) These prurient aspects overshadowed attention to the animal theme, though it has been pointed out that in its clear objection to animal cruelty the film was ahead of its time. There has also been some discussion about whether cruelty had been inflicted on the actual animals on set, especially in the climactic mustang-catching scenes, which I and many other viewers now find very hard to watch.

The mustangs have rightly preoccupied most studies. Their decimation has mostly been interpreted as symbolic or symptomatic of the waning of the legendary Old Wild West, overtaken by post-war disillusionment and mechanised modernity. The Misfits is an early anti-Western. Along with this goes the degradation of masculinity itself: the legendary rugged and weaponised self-sufficiency – which involves the unsentimental domination of land, animals and women alike – is becoming subordinated to impersonal machinery and effete gardening. Guido, for example, expresses his daring individualism and freedom in his rather creaky biplane, but in his one unguarded moment confesses to Roslyn that he’s haunted by the easy, depersonalised destruction of cities and people – and “puppydogs” –  he meted out as a bomber pilot.  Now he flies only to harry the last few mustangs to their ignominious end – and “Shame on you!” Isabelle Steers expostulates.

Less commented on have been the film’s other animal presences. There are the rodeo animals. Perce Howland enters the film as almost manically dislocated, dissolute, lost. With reckless drunkenness he tries to relive his glory days as a rodeo rider; he gets violently thrown by one bucking bronco, but despite his bruises takes on a raging bull. Though the emotionally demonstrative Roslyn seems at this stage more concerned for him than for the animals, the film pointedly has Guido show her (and the viewer) the painful straps which galvanise the animals into bucking frenzy in the first place. Those animals had to be hurting; and Perce’s foray into manhood is equally painfully unsuccessful. That’s why, it seems, he joins the mustanging expedition, for the sake of his battered self-image, not for the money.

In another telling scene Gay, trying in his way to adapt to a settled life commensurate with his age and times, finds that a rabbit has been nibbling his new lettuces: his response, in the frontiersman way, is to grab his shotgun, ready to hunt it down. Roslyn begs for the rabbit’s life; she’s happy to sacrifice a few lettuces, and “can’t bear to see anything killed”. He calls her “silly”; the argument rapidly spirals into one about mutual respect. There is a strong hint here and elsewhere that the subordination of women and animals go hand-in-hand. This brief but resonant and obviously symbolic episode serves as a precursor to Roslyn’s later response to the mustang-catching. Just before it Gay also mentions that some pilots like Guido are hired to kill eagles, because they take “so many lambs” – another instance of agricultural regimes overwhelming the wild.

No one I’ve read so far has explored the role of the dog, Gay’s rangy and enthusiastic Pointer, named (I think) Dooley. Dooley is Gay’s constant companion, his “friend”; Roslyn connects with the dog even before she meets Gay himself. When the group camps out in the moonlit desert, it’s Roslyn who notices that the dog is trembling violently and panting. He got “a whiff of the horses”, Gay guesses. When Roslyn leans down to comfort him, Dooley uncharacteristically snaps at her. It’s not the horses he’s afraid of, Guido asserts, “it’s us.” The dog identifies with the wild animals, knows what’s going to happen, and is “scared he’s gonna end up dead, too.” This is the point at which Roslyn learns the true fate of the mustangs, initiating a crucial discussion on kindness, the changed world, the place of death, the excuses for killing. The dog reappears, panting and moaning: “Shame on you, you old fool,” Gay tells him, “You be quiet now.” Emotion is to be denied. As the capture gets under way, the dog is tethered to the parked plane, sidelined, much as Roslyn is. After the whole event, a joyous reunion between Roslyn and Dooley presages the final hint of a reconciliatory, if uncertain future.

So the film advances to its climactic mustanging episodes. Guido asserts that there might be 15 or so mustangs up in the hills; the others are dubious that they’ll be worth it, but they go for it anyway. If this is meant to be a manly reprise of the Old West, it’s compromised from the start: it’s heavy on technology. First Guido locates from the air a small mustang group – a stallion, four mares and a colt – then uses the biplane to harry them down onto the wide desert flats. There the men, Roslyn and dog aboard, chase the mustangs down in a truck, roping them and weighing them to exhaustion with dragging tyres. The mustangs don’t stand a chance.

Two scenes I find especially rivetting and affecting. In one, the colt, who will not leave the side of its mother, is seen pawing desperately at the flanks of the roped, exhausted and fallen mare. This is close to the note on which Miller’s original story ended:

 Toward evening the wind came up, and they backed into it and faced the mountains from which they had come. From time to time the stallion caught the smell of the pastures up there, and he started to walk toward the vaulted fields in which he had grazed; but the tire bent his neck around. … The cold of night raised the colt onto its legs, and it stood next to the mare for warmth and the other horses closed their eyes and slept. The colt settled again on the hard ground and lay under the mare. … When the first pink glow of another morning lit the sky the colt stood up, and as it had always done at dawn it walked waywardly for water. The mare shifted and her bone hoofs ticked the clay. The colt turned its head and returned to her and stood at her side with vacant eye, its nostrils sniffing the warming air.

The Esquire story thus ends dispiritingly, the horses awaiting their inevitable fate. The film ends differently. The second affecting scene is the turning-point: Roslyn runs away across the sands, and from a distance, the vast desert and distant hills behind her, screams and screams her distress: “Murderers!” she yells, “You’re murderers! Liars! You’re only happy when something dies!” It’s a genuinely hair-raising moment. Though Guido tries to disparage this outburst as just the usual woman being “crazy”, Perse responds to her sentiments, and begins to cut the mustangs free of the tyres they are roped to. “Go home!” Roslyn cries out to the mustangs from the truck cab, “Go!” Gay, incensed, then embarks on perhaps the only genuinely masculine effort in the film: he runs and catches up with the stallion, hanging onto the remaining length of rope round its neck through an exhausting and appalling duel. Roslyn, trying to intervene, is herself hurled to the ground. Though some shots are obviously studio-staged, others seem all too real: indeed, the effort Gable expended on this fight was later blamed for his heart-attack. Gay triumphs in the end, wrestling the sweating stallion to the ground, and lashing it to the truck bumper. Then, however, Roslyn’s “sentimentality” prevails even over him; having, presumably, proven his manhood in the traditional manner, he cuts the stallion loose again. Whether with conscious or unconscious symbolism, though, the rope remains around the stallion’s neck, trailing behind him as he runs.

Though for Marilyn Monroe’s sake (and Hollywood’s) Miller ended the film on this liberatory note, it strikes one now as just a little tinny. Though some protective legislation for mustangs took effect in the 1950s, their day was already well and truly over – another sad instance of the crushing advance of human civilisation, the very world of spiritless work these predatory cowboys hate.


******

Tuesday, 31 July 2018

No.67 - Cycling into Zimbabwean history: a slightly mad journey

The slightly mad journey described here occurred in 1991; the account may have been printed in an obscure Harare broadsheet, the Northern News, maybe in early 1992, but I have no record of that, so venture to resuscitate it here.


IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF MAPONDERA


The early white settlers called him a murderer and a nuisance and a mercenary and a cannibal. Later, black liberation fighters would hail him as a kind of proto-nationalist hero and protector of the poor. In his 1893 novel, Solomon Mutswairo called him “the last and greatest fighter of his country against Cecil Rhodes’ squatters”.

Even as new, often contradictory evidence comes to light, Mapondera remains controversial. But his career in Zimbabwe’s north-eastern districts, from the 1840s to 1904, is astonishingly well-documented.  His tracks are pretty clear.

In his footsteps, very crudely, my friend David and I decided to follow – on bicycles. It was altogether the wrong season to cycle anywhere, over Christmas: very hot, very wet. We also had to do it too quickly, either for comfort or to locate and visit Mapondera’s old haunts with any real precision.

But we did it anyway.

We began where Mapondera ended, both literally and symbolically: Harare. Here he was finally imprisoned and died; and here also his name is enshrined on the facade of the High Court building on Samora Machel Avenue. When he was captured and brought here, so the legend goes, his broken chimurenga spirit possessed him for one last time and he flew about the heads of his terrified captors, before floundering back to earth and final humiliation.

But David and I set out rather in search of the living countryside, the present setting of a once very real, violent and chequered life.

***

[All photos courtesy D G Roux]
DAY ONE

Clear day, soft morning light through Harare’s northern suburbs, early joggers on the Mazowe road. The flat tarmac, cleaving rich red farmland and the research stations, makes for relaxed progress, long shadows mimicking us as we pedal. We stop once near Maryvale to watch a heron hunting through a vlei, take a slug of water in the warming day, and press on down the winding exhilaration of the Golden Stairs. Mazowe Dam on the right, firefinches along the road by the Rowing Club, wagtails in the gorge beneath the high wall. None of the famous oranges at the store: off season.

There has long been citrus at Mazowe: Frederick Courtney Selous wrote of finding lemons here in the 1870s, left maybe by Portuguese wanderers a century before. Though the village originally served goldmines – the map is littered with the crossed picks of mine-sites – citrus took over after the early 1900s when Robert McIlwaine and others started up the Mazoe Syndicate, and built the first citrus factory in 1930.

Mazowe village skulks off the main road among the trees. Beneath huge jacarandas is the moss-greened monument to Blakiston and Routledge, the two youngsters elevated, in the manner of all nascent political powers, to heroic status for little more than getting themselves rather futilely killed in the 1897 Chimurenga. This countryside is full of such mementoes of that rebellion. We divert a short way along the old Fort Road to the hilltop site of Fort Mazoe, from which operations were initially coordinated against Mbuya Nehanda and Kaguvi. Nothing here now except the remnant of a ditch, a thatched shelter for a display of historical accounts and glassed-in photographs; settlers with their pinned-up hats and bandoliers and walrus moustaches; Nehanda and Kaguvi before their execution, a sad, haunted-looking pair whose spirits hovered for seventy years to inspire the second, more successful Chimurenga.

On the way back to the village the rear wheel of Dave’s mountain-bike seizes. We strip it down to find the inside of the bearing housing shredded into flakes. Nothing for it but for him to hitch back to Harare for a replacement. Cursing cheap Taiwanese junk, we pile his gear onto my racing bike (dubbed Mercury, after the god of travellers), and push to the hotel, and he sets off, armed with his wheel. I start to read Newman’s Birds from cover to cover, doze, watch the people who ebb and flow from the veranda: rough-handed agriculturalists, government officials, a lonely farmer who nurses a beer for two hours without removing his baseball cap, a horde of sweaty brittle Danes from a Zambian aid project.

Seven and a half hours later, Dave returns, Isak’s Cycles having generously given him preferential treatment. We retrace our tracks to pitch our Little Red Tent at the rowing club, the rowers’ chant and oar-clank drifting over the water until dark.

We’ve covered the terrific distance of 40 kilometres.

***

My primary source for this historical sections.
Just north of Mazowe, to the south of Chiweshe communal land and in the lee of Nyota Mountain, is the country of Negomo: Mapondera’s original homeland. Negomo’s chiefly name still adorns our map: his people came there, as the stories tell it, around the late 18th century from the semi-mythical territory of Guruuswa (“upriver”), and claimed descent from the great Changamire. Maybe links still existed with the north in the 1830s, as Mapondera said he was born on the Zambezi River.

It was a turbulent time then of internecine strife, foreign invaders. Alternate trade and conflict were carried on with the Portuguese – vazungu­ – along the Zambezi, particularly in gold (gold panning is still today devastating large sections of the lower Mazowe river, alongside Umfurudzi). One Magumu is said to have won the present Negomo lands; after the death of Magumu’s adventurous successor Chiwodza, credited with killing a magician in Dande, the Negomo dynasty split and the chieftainship erratically circulated between brothers. One of Chiwodza’s sons strangled another, a third committed suicide. When Mapondera was born, Chiwodza’s grandson, the “quiet man” Dandera, held sway – but little power that was, at a time when Zwangendaba’s Ngoni madzviti were foraging disruptively northwards on their way from Natal to Malawi.

Dendara was succeeded by Gorejana, maybe Mapondera’s father (even Mapondera’s grandchildren debate this) and a renowned settler of disputes. Mapondera seems to have inherited some of this ability, though it’s arguable whether he didn’t provoke more conflicts than he solved. Little is known of his childhood, but certainly he distinguished himself in resisting Ndebele raiders who scattered through this area in the 1860s, and in sundry Shona civil wars over land, stolen grain, a robbed woman. Either in conquest or arbitration, Mapondera won himself some 25 wives over the years.

In 1884, Mapondera met his first white man, a Montagu Kerr, who was following in the tracks of Selous. Three years later, the great white hunter himself met the Shona chief. Selous extracted (or they concocted together) a fraudulent concession, apparently designed to forestall the encroachments of equally mercenary Portuguese “warlords”, who were making a concerted effort to take over Zimbabwe’s central plateau even as they squabbled among themselves.  By 1891, whites were making more serious incursions from the south into the Mazowe valley; clashes occurred over labour and tax; missionaries arrived in Nyota; in 1892 a white trader was murdered. The build-up in tension was steady until the outbreak of widespread rebellion in 1896.

But by then Mapondera had gone, heading north-west – as we did.

***

DAY TWO

For the second time we cross through the gap in the Iron Mask range, past Concession’s ranked grain silos, turning off towards Mvurwi. The day heats up rapidly. Mapondera’s Nyota (Thirst) mountain faint in the east. The turnoff to the Howard Institute, the Salvation Army school and successor to the first mission in Chiweshe, which in 1891 included maybe Zimbabwe’s first black missionary. Acres of citrus trees, tiny oranges peeping.

We both suffer in the heat, welcome the stop to watch a Longcrested eagle on a telephone pole, its self-assured stance, that fierce crest of black feathers, white windows on its wings as it flies. Dave labours particularly: he’s carrying more gear on his sturdy mountain-bike, suffers more road-friction from its fat tyres, more wind-resistance from his upright posture. He drinks vast quantities of water, and I rib him about it; I find that when on the move more than a mouthful makes my stomach turn and legs go leaden.

We stop at a store for cool drinks, craving ice and sugar. Reggae music blasts numbingly from scratchy speakers. People stare; boys convulse in laughter. We are a sight: Dave in sandals, straw hat, multicoloured shorts, intellectual’s glasses, long muscular arms gripping those spacious handlebars; me in boots and binos, Indiana Jones hat, purple panniers. All the way we suffer from this intense self-consciousness.

Mvurwi’s granite koppies sail into view, ghostly overturned galleons, well before lunch. We collapse on grass on the curving main street, chat to a South African couple and their Zimbabwean daughter: “You’re going to Gooroovy? Why the hell would anyone want to go to Gooroovy?” We’ll die in the Valley, we’re told. But we’ll head for Guruve anyway, as soon as we’ve got over feeling like the “heap of pieces” the name Mvurwi means. Once called Dawsons, the village became Umvukwes in 1935.

We drop in on an acquaintance; his kind, bluff landlady entertains, allows us to shower in humid pre-storm heat. Clean, we launch into a skyscape of riotous, steely storm-cloud, dark sheaves of approaching rain thundering through Gertrude Page country: this 1930s novelist’s grave at Omeath is just a few kilometres south as we turn towards Guruve.

A cool, magnificent tailwind lifts us over the Great Dyke at Mupingi Pass: a protected area and the northernmost crossing of the 530-kilometre serpentinite mass, the world’s longest, 2,500 million years old. If there are any of the Dyke’s 20 endemic plant species along this route, we don’t notice, the storm-wind hurtling us down the Pass’s exhilarating loops, making nearly 30 kilometres an hour. We stop momentarily for more wanter, race on in the dusk through the bleak flatlands of Guruve communal lands, scattering stones and chickens, finally turning aside to pitch the Little Red Tent near the headwaters of the Dande River.


***

A mere 20 kilometres downstream of us, in late 1894, Mapondera came to rest with 50 followers, on the rugged edge of the Zambezi escarpment.

Why did he flee his homeland at Nyota, where he had lived for nearly 50 years? Probably many reasons. There was drought in 1893-4; a lot of people had to move. There was the conflict with the new white raiders (they could hardly be called a government yet), especially after the killing of the trader Henry Austin and the arrest of his killer, Rwanga. The notorious Native Commissioner Kenny was stretching his tax-collecting tentacles into the Mazowe valleys.

But Mapondera had avoided friction with the whites himself: he just raided his neighbours. As one described it: “About 3 days ago Mapondera’s men came to my kraal. Mapondera was there himself with a great many of his men. They said they had come for cattle from us. We had no cattle of theirs. They came and took all our cattle – about 14 cattle – and killed a boy and a girl. The boy was stabbed by an assegai and the girl was a little girl they caught hold of her and dashed her against a piece of wood. ... They took away my wife and her two children. My wife and my children.”

So it was probably Mapondera’s neighbours who pushed him out, despite his prominent position.  Here on the Dande’s steep hills, he was beyond the reach of British, Portuguese and vengeful Shona alike. This northern curve of the Dyke, the Horseshoe, had always been a place of refuge for Nagomo’s people; it was here that Chiwodze had killed his magician and returned to power.

Mapondera would never return to power in Nyota. He was left alone until 1900; the 1896-7 chimurenga entirely passed him by. But in April 1900 he fatally drew attention to himself by raiding in his old home ground, too close to Mazowe to be ignored, and again in June by attacking, for no known reason, one Mavuri. One of Mapondera’s own daughters tried to warn Mavuri, but too late: Mapondera shot him through the thighs, and both the traitorous daughter and the wounded Mavuri prudently fled to the white camp at Chinhoyi’s.

The result, of course, was a punitive patrol. Twenty whites under Gilson set out on what would be called “The Chastisement of Mapondera”. However, Mapondera ambushed them just west of where Dave and I were camped, and they were scattered, with one man killed. So, equally inevitably, a bigger force was despatched. A hundred and eighty men attacked Mapondera’s base on 5 July; four of Mapondera’s men were killed. More importantly, his crops and villages were destroyed, his family and followers dispersed.

Mapondera had to move his people again.

***

DAY THREE

The peaks of the Horseshoe – smoky, sheer-sided Mavurwe among them – close in on Dave and I as we negotiate the dirt farm roads. This is where Dave’s mountain bike scores over my bony, frail 10-speed.

We skirt Guruve township – some stores still bear the pre-independence name, Sipolilo – thus unfortunately missing the famous Tengenenge sculpture workshop. The Tengenenge river flows from the Dyke to the Dande, the source of the gleaming serpentine they coax those world-renowned sculptures from.

We tether our bikes near the tobacco barns of Penrose Farm, asking permission to walk to Tingwa Raphia Palm Reserve, one of two small designated preserves in an area known generally as the Palm Block. A hot 4-kilometre tramp across the northernmost curve of the Horseshoe’s great question-mark, through maize fields and uapaca woodland, chittering woodhoopoes and Amethyst starlings, unidentifiable raptors screaming on the high thermals. Somewhere to the east, a mountain beckons with its name: Incognito.

The raphia palms (Raphia farinefera), the last insular remnants of a once popular tribe, cluster along the narrow head of the Mavare stream as it flows through vlei north-west into Mavuradonha: towering, creaking fronds fanning from layered bases – the longest leaves in the plant kingdom, up to 18 metres tall. Returning, we find ancient rock paintings in the lee of an outcrop: magical flaking renditions of energetic hunters, waterbuck, giraffe – some, strangely, upside-down (dead?) – maybe 10,000 years old.

Press on, tough farm roads, alternately sandy and rocky; onto a short stretch of tar north of Guruve, then dirt again. Horrible, this bit: recently graded, with a treacherous sheath of loose stones; Mercury slides and rattles and fishtails, and I dread the blowout that doesn’t come.

Almost last light: Bakasa Business Centre, perched on the lip of the Zambezi escarpment: RMS trucks and buses grinding up from the valley, music, lemonades (all we can buy in a time of shortages), beer-cradling youngsters on holiday crowding us with friendly questions: Are you on a race? Who is sponsoring you? Who are you raising money for? They can’t believe it is just for fun (is it?), have heard only vaguely of Mapondera.

Valleys fall away on every side; habitation everywhere. In my halting Shona I ask to pitch Little Red Tent on a flat spot near some huts. Little girls gather with badzas to clear the stones for us, awestruck by the “piccanini kaya”, sleeping-bags (“Brunkets!”), sadza being cooked on a meths stove. And I sleep out, pasted with repellent, listening to the bushbabies cawing in the donga, the sky weighted and bouyed at once with its wheeling stars.

***

Mapondera needed to plant a new season’s crops, rebuild villages before the rains. He was caught between British and Portuguese tribute-collectors. In the Dande there was talk of further rebellion against the new white overlords, with rumours that many of the whites had left to fight a big war against the vabunhu, the Boers, far to the south.

Mapondera was less keen to fight than to find security, food, the means to hold his diminished people together. It was an desperate move to go into the Zambezi Valley, with its tsetse fly, its heat, its poor Kalahari sands. But in July 1900 another white patrol caught up with him; he escaped, and dropped, somewhere in the vicinity of Bakasa, over the escarpment to a point on the Musengezi River.

He returned once to Dande to recover some of his belongings, and shot in the leg a youth who turned obstinate. It was his last appearance in that traditional haven.

***

DAY FOUR

Like Mapondera, we drop precipitately from Bakasa to the valley floor, 600 metres down treacherously loose hairpins. Dave positively enjoys it on that muscular bike of his; I nurse complaining Mercury over the rocks and avalanching pebbles; more than once the machine despairs and throws its wheels in the air and sends me leaping.

That liberating floodplain comes intermittently into view round the wooded corners, blurring into mysterious, unreachable blues towards Kanyemba and Cabora Bassa, where Portuguese gangsters once traded and slaved and lived the violent, polygamous lives of minor potentates.

Shoulders aching and paintwork scratched, we arrive at the Fly Gate (extra wide, to admit exceptionally large flies?), a store without drinks, mangoes on pole-and-thatch stalls. We head west along the foot of the escarpment, trying to make as much distance as possible before the heat hits us. We stop for tea beneath a thorn tree, not far from Mutota’s Ruins, a schist oval structure, possibly connected with the Mwenemutapa imperial complex, pottery dating it to around the 15th-17th centuries (this is book-learning: we don’t actually find the ruin ourselves, far too much effort in the growing heat).

After crossing the Musengezi, not far upstream from where Mapondera settled, we find a steel-and-concrete blessing: a roadside borehole. A laughing man pumps the long handle while we duck and writhe in its pulsing stream, the nearest we’ve had to a wash since Mvurwi. Finally, dripping and sapped, but having made some decent progress on well-kept gravel, we reach Muzarabani shops and irrigation scheme. No electricity, no ice’n’sugar. We buy biscuits and exorbitantly expensive oranges, crash for a few hours under a pair of corpulent baobabs, refreshing ourselves in the irrigation sprinklers.  A snazzily-dressed young lady in scarlet shoes and straw boater comes across to chat, wrinkling her face in utter amazement: “From Harare! And back again? My God, you must know how much I hate cycling!”

Mid-afternoon: back up the escarpment, thankful for the tarmac of the Alfa Trail. Push, ride; push, ride. It’s exhausting, dispiriting to see the road loop back and forth above us. Dave, tractor-treads and Mister Tuffies anti-thorn strip inside his tyres notwithstanding, picks up a slow puncture, keeps stopping to pump, grows irritable and despondent.  (I’ve been there, buddy.) Elephant dung on the road; no elephants. At last, after three hours of backbreaking climbing, we arrive at the campsite at Mavuradonha, absolutely empty. Even the manager’s away. Up goes the LRT; down go the weary heads.

I wonder if we’re the only crazy coots ever to have cycled down and up the Zambezi Escarpment, by two different routes, on the same summer day.

***

Mapondera, like us, was not long on the Musengezi – a few months. He was too close to the Portuguese warlord Fonseca for a start, and by October 1900 he had moved bodily eastwards, 150 kilometres onto the lower Ruya – well inside Mozambique and just north of that sharp north-eastern corner of Zimbabwe enticingly called Baobab Beacon – but there Dave and I can’t follow.

It was a pretty horrendous place to live. Mapondera put down new crops in the local transhumance style, but the soils were poor, rains inadequate. Between plantings, raiding was endemic. Mapondera was implicated in some raids, including the killing of a white trader in late 1900, but many of the tales were probably spread by Mapondera’s slanderous rivals. But every man had a gun; Portuguese slaving threatened every woman; British raiders, claiming suddenly to rule the whole area and demanding tax, erratically came, were resisted, and went away again.

Mapondera sandwiched himself between two tough local chiefs, Chiuti and Chioko, who, along with Chimanda and Pfungwe on the upper Mazowe, continued to offer spirited resistance to the incursions of Native Commissioners Taberer and Kenny, who had set up an advance base at Pfura (Mount Darwin).

For his part, Mapondera’s own experiences rankled. He had more or less consistently avoided conflict with the whites; those few he had met personally, he had treated hospitably. They in return had repeatedly attacked him under some misguided judiciary impulse which compelled them to control affairs which had never had anything to do with them. As a result, Mapondera had been reduced to shiftlessness and virtual destitution.

But he was by no means finished yet.
Our route, going clockwise.

***

DAY FIVE

We relax at the Mavuradonha campsite for the morning. I wander about, watching birds, a pair of Wahlberg’s eagles harassing baboons on the hill. David repairs his puncture; our steeds are groomed and fed, their wheels relaxed in the air.

After lunch we leave into a forbidding prospect of storm. After yesterday I have no energy for the initial hill, barely appreciate the cold witch-brooms of rain that sweep the Tingwa and Musengezi valleys to the west, vagrant patches of sun on the Mulingura Hills. Almost invisible beyond, the eastern slopes of the Horseshoe. We turn east towards Mount Darwin, afternoon sun burning our shoulders. Magnificent downslope into the farmlands, exhilaration reluctant to brake, youths shouting hoarsely from the banks, whether encouraging or abusive is impossible to say.

Slow climb again; I feel drained, irritated that Dave isn’t hanging back for me. We stop at one store in search of that self-renewing grail of Ice’n’Sugar; about thirty people are already there, an unlit stuffy cavern, another thirty curious children crush in behind us: the dark crowding and sudden lack of air overwhelm us and we flee, buying nothing. Another store along the road offers celebratory music, friendly poring over our maps by sundry young men, cold LemonTwists. Darkness overtakes us thirty kilometres short of Mount Darwin; the LRT goes up on tussocky burnt grass against a swarming termite-mound, rain-clouds threatening again, scotching fantasies of a friendly farmhouse: “What, camp? No. no, come in, have a drink, have a bath, roast chicken, a nice bed!”

Ho ho. We wriggle and toss in the confines of the hot tent, tussocks nudging our spines, ants running over our feet; we’re trying to find a miracle in the fact that we haven’t been rained on once yet.

***

By Februrary 1901, the disgruntled Mapondera was ready for a major assault on the white outpost at Mount Darwin – the only such deliberate attack of his career. For weeks messengers had shuttled back and forth across the north-west region, gathering soldiers and carriers. Chiutsi joined in, as did groups from Pfungwe, Chitange, Makuni, Chipara; Manyozi and Chimbangu from further west, from Mkote and Nyombwe to the south.  Some never joined at all: Chioko had already aligned himself with Kenny; others deserted when the crunch came; others still arrived too late. On Mapondera’s line of march, only Chimanda, 70 kilometres east of Darwin, failed to supply some sort of support. In the end, he had maybe 600 men with him.

On 15 February, a hundred of Mapondera’s men attacked Chimanda’s villages. Though beaten off, possibly because the powder for their muzzle-loaders got wet in the rain, they forced Chimanda to flee, and later captured him. Mapondera then secured his flanks on the flooded Mazowe and Ruya rivers with incoming recruits, and camped with his full force for several days on the small stream of the Matitima, only 40 kilometres away from Kenny’s base at Darwin.

The delay was fatal.

On the night of 1 March, a force of eight whites and a hundred African supporters moved out of Darwin. They swung too far north initially, only realising their mistake when they bumped into some recruits hurrying south to join Mapondera on the Matitima. Turning south, the white column quite accidentally surprised Mapondera from behind. Foolishly, they split in two: one half was taken in the flank by Mapondera’s men, who committed themselves in full faith in Mapondera’s nyambe medicine-tail, by which he had promised to turn enemy bullets to water.

The fighting was fierce, and the white force was saved from annihilation only by the timely arrival of its other half. Among other casualties, Chiutsi was shot in the stomach, and died later. Like two boys daunted by each other’s ferocity, both forces then backed off the field.

Mapondera had failed in his apparent objective of killing Kenny and driving the whites from the Mount Darwin area, and had lost the necessary momentum to continue. His supporters, who had anyway joined for a muddle of motives – territory, loot, vengeance, loyalty, taxation – scattered back to their homes. Mapondera regrouped at Chimanda’s, badly mauled, losing a son drowned in the Mazowe on the way.

For all the effort, he had left himself even worse off than before.

***

DAY SIX

Christmas Day. It was both hot and wet in the night. Light drizzle in the morning. Not far to Mount Darwin, originally named Pfura (rhinoceros), and renamed after the evolutionary theorist by F C Selous. We roll into its main street, enormously wide, as if still to take in turning ox-trains, a gravelled straight with spaced, high-fronted shops, looped with electricity wires, verandas, for all the world like a Wild West town, with cycles for horses.

The atmosphere here is really strange. Everywhere else we’ve felt either warmed by people’s spontaneous greetings, or uncomfortable under uncomprehending and shameless stares, or claustrophobic in tightly gathered curious crowds. But here we merit only the casual glance, the polite nod. People just go about their business as if they have itinerant cyclists coming through every day of the week. It’s at once liberating and prickly.

It’s Dave’s turn to feel ennervated. Leaving him and all my gear in Darwin, I attempt a 40-kilometre sprint to Mapondera’s battlefield at Matitima, out on the Rushinga road. A tailwind helps, a faint rain refreshes, and I revel, I have to admit, in the solitude. Dave and I are close friends – but still I feel something special in travelling alone.

Through Chesa small-scale farming area (formerly Purchase Area, the white government’s tool in synthesising a compliant black rural middle class), the plots becoming more sparsely worked the further I get from Darwin, giving way to more woodland. Orange-throated longclaws startle and drop into the grass, bolt-upright and alert like mongooses.

A few kilometres short of Matitima rain and wind strengthen. I get to a rise where I think I’m overlooking the battle area through grey walls of rain and time; rolling woodland, wink of a tiny dam through the msasas, Ndorohwe Hill up ahead, the rising ground of Umfurudzi Safari Area not far to the south. This then is where Mapondera’s career climaxed, though not quite ended. Impossible to discern more detail now; I turn back, tiring rapidly in a strong headwind, until a truck stops and I accept a ride, cold in the rain, to rejoin Dave.

For much of the afternoon we shelter on a veranda. Children peep round corners and shrink back when we wave at them. A young unemployed man, beer-bottle clutched firmly by the throat, shuttles back and forth from the hotel: “This government is rubbish! The people are suffering.  The prices go up! We should have white people in the government. They know how to organise.” It’s hard to tell how drunk or genuine he is.

At last, we detect, with some effort, a slight slackening in the rain. Let’s go for it. We mount our rearing stallions and hit the road south.  The rain falls harder.  And harder. The headwind all but halts us in our tracks. We battle on in raincoats (psychological value only) through drenched passes, putting away our specs as worse than useless, hoping for that mythical farmhouse, fretting about the gathering darkness.  Soaked by rain from above and wheel-spray from beneath, we finally cross Huck’s Drift and hole up on the veranda of a store. Drunken youths roar with laughter from a bus-shelter; Dave makes the fateful and inevitable discovery that even Karrimor panniers aren’t watertight in an African thunderstorm.  We cook in the dark. But we’re more dry than wet; we welcome even this unyielding concrete and the company of two men who stay on all through the lightning-riven night, guarding their store against Christmas-Day thieves.

***

Those thieves, I surmise, are the modern equivalent of Mapondera’s raiders. Having reaped little or no food that season, Mapondera reverted after Matitima to his customary habits of avoiding conflict with the whites and plundering his Shona neighbours.  But the whites weren’t going to let him go so easily. Apart from his depredations on other Shona, Mapondera was endangering their gold trade between Mazowe and Tete in Mozambique, and beginning to skirmish with the nearest Portuguese trader, Martini.

On 25 June 1901 Mapondera was ambushed at a beer-party by a force of over a hundred British, but with his usual cunning escaped. He raided northwards, while his son Gotora, in alliance with other local chiefs, marauded south beyond the Nyadiri river and plundered a white gold-panners’ camp. They gained little, since only the poorest of whites would venture so far north, but it was more than enough to provoke the despatch of another white force in January 1902, this one consisting of over 400 men, including some 280 carriers. Mapondera’s men sniped at the force for nine days running, but could do nothing to prevent the year’s new crops from being entirely destroyed.

That spelt final disaster. Some of Mapondera’s people surrendered to Taberer. The despairing Mapondera himself made a humiliating move he would not have contemplated just a month before – he gave himself into the hands of the Portuguese at Cachomba on the Zambezi.

There, Mapondera was permitted to plant a new crop, but the Portuguese weren’t going to give it to him for nothing. They were just then renewing their efforts to infiltrate the plateau region, and in 1902 hired Mapondera to lead a long-distance raid on Makombe of Barwe, a hundred kilometres due east of where Dave and I slept on Christmas night. The incursion was beaten off; either Mapondera was captured by Makombe, or he escaped and went underground, for nothing was heard of him for another eight months.

When he resurfaces in the records in mid 1903, he is running south again. In Nyota, old Negomo had died; his people were offering considerable passive resistance to the whites; the Negomo succession was wide open. For the last time, we cross Mapondera’s tracks as he finally returns to his original homeland.

***

DAY SEVEN

Turning south to follow Mapondera home, we find Boxing Day cool, faintly drizzly in patches, with a steady tailwind. Dave seems to have found his cycling legs: where heading north he had generally lagged, now it’s all I can do to keep up with the beggar. We hurtle through Madziwa communal land, over the beautiful turns of the Shashi Pass, across the muddy flood of the Mazowe river, making excellent time despite the steady climb of 500 metres from Darwin to Bindura. We stop for lunch in this extensive mining town (originally named Kimberley Reefs after the 1901 goldmine, now host to Trojan, Zimbabwe’s largest nickel producer). For the first time in a decade, I have this absurd craving for cheese and bully-beef on white bread, washed down with cold milk.

Replete, and having had a conversation with a Shona farmer about the situation in Romania (of which we’ve heard nothing for a week), we press on in alternate sun and shade, the hills of Mapondera’s Nyota reappearing, ice-blue and glittering with their granite tips, on our right.

And our journey ends, as unexpectedly, though with a rather more satisfying kind of ignominy, as Mapondera’s, in Mazowe.

Here, we cruise up to the hotel, intending to trough out in Ice, Sugar, and Chips, and to camp again before tackling the Golden Stairs in the morning. But we meet an acquaintance of mine. He has a Land-Rover. An empty Land-Rover. Going to Harare. We throw up our hands. After the last 500 kilometres, what’s another 40? Pride dissolves in the prospect of hot showers, spongy chairs, clean beds with real sheets.

As we motor that final stretch, I think of Mapondera’s end.

He had not come back to Nyota to vie for the chieftainship, nor to join the resistance against the whites. Instead, he passed through to Mazowe itself and gave himself up to the subordinate of his long-standing foe Taberer, M D Fynn.

Over this road, pretty much, he would have been carried to his final abode, Salisbury Jail. He was photographed after his surrender: shackled, enormously gaunt, worn, still faintly defiant with the flat glaucoma’d eyes photographs gave people in those days. He was tried but, strangely, insufficient evidence could be accumulated to execute him. Instead, he was given seven years’ imprisonment. At his age, the judge noted, it was tantamount to a life sentence. Still, Mapondera danced as sentence was pronounced.

He lived for barely a year after that. The circumstances were strange. The prison record says he was putting on weight. His family asserts that he died on hunger strike, saying, “Though I may serve that sentence and go out of gaol, what am I going to do, the chieftainship has gone, the country has gone.”


*****