“They will never know what we lost when we lost our home”: How Do Women in Ladysmith, KwaZulu-Natal, Remember Forced Removals (1960-1990)? By Jeaneth Samantha Isaack 1070596 Supervisor: Professor Julian Brown Political Studies Department University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. 15 March 2024 A research report submitted to the faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts by coursework and research in Political Studies. 2 ISAACK 09 03 2021 3 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg School of Social Sciences SENATE PLAGIARISM POLICY Declaration by Student I JEANETH SAMANTHA ISAACK (Student number: 1070596) am a student registered for MASTER (POLITICA STUDIES) in the year 2024. I hereby declare the following: I am aware that plagiarism (the use of someone else’s work without their permission and/or without acknowledging the original source) is wrong. I confirm that ALL the work submitted for assessment for the above course is my own unaided work except where I have explicitly indicated otherwise. I have followed the required conventions in referencing the thoughts and ideas of others. I understand that the University of the Witwatersrand may take disciplinary action against me if there is a belief that this in not my own unaided work or that I have failed to acknowledge the source of the ideas or words in my writing. Signature: ISAACK Date: 28/08/2024 4 Acknowledgements After years of countless drafts and tribulations, I have a long list of people to thank. Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Julian Brown, my supervisor. Your abundant patience, compassion, and advice have made this body of work possible, finally. Your support and trust in my capabilities over the last few years have been unwavering, and for that, I am truly thankful. Dr. Antje Schuhmaan, I cannot thank you enough for being a sister and mentor to me for many years now. Thank you for everything. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Rob Moore, whose calming voice amidst the storm has always reminded me of what's possible. I am grateful to the University of the Witwatersrand for providing me with the platform and resources to make this work possible. I would also like to thank the National Research Fund (NRF) for granting me the financial resources that enabled me to conduct this work. I must also thank the History Workshop and Dr. Ali Hlongwane for their research support, which helped shape this work. I am deeply grateful to the women in Ezakheni, Ladysmith, who participated in this study and shared their space and life stories. Thank you for lending me your voice to make this research possible. Finally, I’d like to thank the rest of my family and friends for their unwavering support, and my sister Wendy Isaack, my first inspiration. 5 Dedication: This thesis is dedicated to my late mother, Khumbuzile Alexina Isaack (1955-2020). 6 Abstract This thesis focuses on the enduring impact of forced removals and the significance of land dispossession in present-day South African politics. It is based on interviews I conducted with women who experienced forced removals in the 1970s from areas surrounding Ladysmith, KwaZulu-Natal. Much of the literature on forced removals focuses on the event of the removals and less on the aftermath of the event particularly from the perspective of the women who have often had to lead the rebuilding of households, communities and local economies. Access to land and land ownership is today still a contested topic despite government initiatives to remedy the injustices of the past. Using a feminist lens in conducting this research means identifying the need to highlight and put forth women’s experiences of land dispossession in ongoing land debates. Moreover, the study is a contribution to the limited literature on the long- term effects of dispossession for those who experienced forced removals in the country. Furthermore, this study illustrates the limits of the current land reform policy in addressing the far-reaching effect of the removals as is revealed through interviews with the women who experienced forced removals. In this study, I argue that the current approach of restitution cannot be successful unless it acknowledges the ongoing nature of the experience of forced removals. Remembering and referring to the past is part of the initiative to establish a better future for the vast majority of previously (and often still) disadvantaged people. 7 Contents Introduction: .............................................................................................................................. 9 Methodology: ....................................................................................................................... 11 Methods of research ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................ 12 Interviews and Participants: ................................................................................................. 14 Textual Analysis ................................................................................................................... 18 Chapter Outline: ....................................................................................................................... 21 Chapter One: ............................................................................................................................ 23 History of Land Dispossession in South Africa: ...................................................................... 24 Transvaal and the Orange Free State: .................................................................................. 25 The Cape and Northern Natal: ............................................................................................. 26 Mineral Discovery and Cheap Labour: ................................................................................ 28 The Making of Modern South Africa and Migrant Labour: ................................................ 31 Case Studies: ............................................................................................................................ 35 Umbulwane .......................................................................................................................... 35 Utrecht.................................................................................................................................. 38 Hobsland (Vulandondo) ....................................................................................................... 39 Roosboom ............................................................................................................................ 41 Relocation area: Ezakheni Township ....................................................................................... 43 Chapter Two: Land Rights and Gender.................................................................................... 46 Access to land and land ownership: ................................................................................. 48 Property utilization: ......................................................................................................... 52 Forced removals effects on families/households: ............................................................ 53 Chapter Three: Economic Agency and Gender ....................................................................... 56 Women under apartheid: .................................................................................................. 56 Housing impediments for African women and their dependants: .................................... 60 8 Employment impediments: .............................................................................................. 62 Chapter Four: Land Restitution, Rights, and Agency After Apartheid .................................... 64 Land Reform in democratic South Africa: ........................................................................... 64 Restitution, Redistribution and, Tenure Reform: ............................................................. 65 Criticisms and Challenges: .............................................................................................. 69 Participants experience and understanding of the land reform policy: ................................ 70 Conclusion: .............................................................................................................................. 75 9 Introduction: This thesis is about the long aftermath of forced removals and the continued relevance of the experience of land dispossession for contemporary South African politics. It is founded on interviews with a group of women who were forcibly removed from Umbulwane, Hobsland, Utrecht and Roosboom near Ladysmith in the northern region of KwaZulu-Natal in the 1970s. The approach used in this study is convenience sampling in a community in which I had some personal knowledge. Further, my mother had personally been a victim of the Ladysmith forced removals and I intended to use my mother in identifying surviving prospective interview partners. Sadly, my mother succumbed to Covid-19 early in the process, so I approached her circle of friends and relatives for guidance in identifying women who had experienced the removals. My selection process thus consisted of convenience sampling of surviving women in a community I grew up in, and in which I would more easily build trust and confidence amongst informants. In a series of lengthy life-history interviews, six women spoke about their experience of removal and relocation, their long history of struggle in the decades that followed, and their hopes and disappointments in the processes of restitution that have been initiated at the end of apartheid through the land reform policy. Their stories reflect on the community they lost due to the removals, the communities they sought to recreate in the relocation area, and their efforts to rebuild their lives and make a living in an unfamiliar and inadequate environment. Their accounts reveal the nature of gendered discrimination in relation to land access and ownership that they experienced following their forced removals, drawing particular attention to the discriminatory legal practices that prevented them from owning property independent of any male relationship. Their experiences and accounts reflect and underscore how the issues they continue to face in the relocation area connect the long history of apartheid injustices with their present-day struggles. Their exclusion from appropriate employment, and housing and the effects the removals had and continue to have on their family structures and households contribute to the socio-economic issues they are faced with today. In this thesis, I put their stories into the context set out in the secondary literature on forced removals and land dispossession. This literature includes work that was largely produced in the late apartheid period as well as a new generation of scholarship produced in the last decade. This research has enabled me to argue - as I will do in the rest of the thesis– that the earlier literature on forced removals did not engage sufficiently with the gendered nature of forced 10 removals and that the accounts told to me by the respondents of this study can help redress this historic imbalance. This argument has two key consequences. First, it helps demonstrate that the earlier literature on forced removals tended to treat the moment of removal as a singular wrong – an individual act of dispossession and that the restitution framework developed in the law after apartheid builds upon this tendency, as the mechanisms it employs to address apartheid-era land dispossession operate on a similar presumption. The interviews that I conducted demonstrate that this is an overly limited representation of the social, political and economic effects of dispossession. The complaints by the women who participated in this study show that the act of dispossession was (and is) an ongoing process and suggest that the existing legal and intellectual approach to forced removals is overly limited and does not acknowledge in depth the relentless ramifications of forced removals. The accounts of women who underwent forced removal highlight specifically gendered experiences that emphasize the ongoing effects of forced removals almost fifty years later. I argue, therefore, that the existing restitution approach cannot succeed without recognizing the ongoing nature of the experience of forced removals. In particular, the financial compensation offered by the restitution process is unsatisfactory. The respondents do not view this mechanism as a “fix-all” remedy but are rather dissatisfied with it in that it does not address the overall struggles they face in their relocation areas. It appears to them to offer a once-off payment that cannot redress the continuing issues in their communities, including their problems with service delivery and the violence in their communities that cannot be addressed by the existing restitution process. In the rest of the introduction, I will outline the methodological approaches I used of in the research. This includes an explanation of the methods of research, and the theoretical framework established to situate and analyze the secondary literature as well as the interview material. I provide a detailed account of the interview process, setting out the identities of those women who were interviewed, how the interviews were conducted, and the method of analyzing the data from the interviews. Capturing the testimonies of the women in this format allows us to view their contribution to the concept of oral histories and the traditions of storytelling in a way that bridges the gap between academia and the community. Their everyday experiences speak to the significance of intersectionality in that their lives are shaped by more than one system of oppression and that their social standing, gender and race were direct factors that contributed to their oppression and continued exclusion in land ownership patterns. In this research paper, I use intersectionality in the sense of centring the experiences of a marginalized group – black women, to showcase that the systemic inequities of forced removals 11 were experienced differently by black women based not only on their gender and race but also their age, class, and their location. Intersectionality suggests that social identities like class, race, gender, nationality, sexuality, and disability intersect, resulting in different experiences of privilege and oppression (Collins, 2015). Patricia Hill Collins has stated that intersectionality is not a “typical testable theory” and this is particularly true for this paper as it relies heavily on the narratives provided by the participants during the interview process. I use the narratives of the participants to highlight that their experiences of forced removals speak to more than just racial oppression under apartheid but other oppressions as well. Methodology: This study is qualitative and combines both theoretical and empirical approaches to research. Interviews serve as the primary source of data, while the available literature on forced removals serves as the secondary source. The literature in this study draws from theoretical reflections, critical discussions, and the vast secondary literature on the history, and effects of forced removals in the country and more specifically in the KwaZulu-Natal province. This methodology provides a deeper understanding of the processes of dispossession and allows readers to contextualize the history of forced removals within our current political landscape. The “convenience sampling” approach mentioned in the introduction page resulted in eight informants for interviews, but in the end, I chose the six most relevant individuals for my purpose. Those six had been removed from various areas neighbouring Ladysmith but all had ended up in the Ezakheni township and therefore faced distinctive but broadly similar conditions in experiencing the same arbitrary cruelty of being torn from long-standing homesteads and having to adapt to the conditions of their new involuntary settlement. To yield an in-depth understanding of the experiences or accounts provided by those women who were witnesses to the forced removals in and around Ladysmith, this study makes use of qualitative methods in capturing their accounts. Through an extensive interview process with six women in the Ezakheni township, I was able to gather the data outlined in this research paper, making use of semi-structured open-ended interviews with participants in the different sections of the township. This enabled multi-dimensional and comparative perspectives on the experience of the removals. 12 Theoretical Framework The study uses intersectionality as a theoretical framework and oral history methodology. Intersectionality as a theoretical framework centred on the relevance of women’s everyday experiences, and their role in written/recorded history sets the base for this study. Through the work of Kimberly Crenshaw, Meghan Healy, and Fanelwe Mhago amongst others who describe and analyse the social, cultural, economic, and political conditions of individuals. In sum, “intersectionality is not about identity politics but is about the social, cultural, political, and economic processes that affect our lives” (Price, 2011, p. 34). In this research paper, I use intersectionality in the sense of centring the experiences of a marginalized group – black women, to showcase that the systemic inequities of forced removals were experienced differently by black women based not only on their gender and race but also their age, class, and their location. Intersectionality suggests that various social identities such as class, race, gender, nationality, sexuality, and disability intersect in complex systems of power, resulting in different experiences of privilege and oppression (Collins, 2015). Patricia Hill Collins has stated that “intersectionality is not a typical testable theory” and in this sense, I don’t use intersectionality to test the impact of forced removals on a marginalized group rather, I use the narratives of the participants to highlight that their experiences of forced removals speak to more than just racial oppression under apartheid but other oppressions as well. To capture the relevance of the participants’ testimonies, I make use of Dominick Lacapra’s theory of the value of ‘humanitarian testimonies’ in the field of memory work and oral history more broadly – “A witness gives a testimony or bears witness to the way he or she experienced events, and it is this experience, which has an “authenticity,” that at times cannot be accessed in other ways” (Lacapra, 2016, p. 382). David Glasberg’s conceptualization of history, and the narratives that constitute distinctions between collective memory and public history, provide a starting point in trying to close the gap between popular narratives and the lived experiences of individuals. Drawing from Heidi Grunebaum’s approach to memory work which posits the study of memory as one to be actively pursued in everyday politics, and not only in reviewing historical events. This study seeks to illuminate the significance of memory politics in the ordinary day-to-day lives of the respondents. There is limited research that explores solely the experience of black women during forced removals in South Africa: much of the available research focuses on the collective experiences of racial groups. The individual experience is as significant as the collective experience, and 13 my research will investigate those experiences of individual women in Ladysmith who were removed from their homes and resettled in the Ezakheni area, and how that experience has impacted their lives, then and now. In the words of Elaine Scarry: “Whatever pain achieves, it achieves in part through its shareability, and it ensures this shareability through its resistance to language" (Scarry, 1985, p. 4). Scarry’s subject of research is specifically physical pain and its effects on the individual, but her analysis can also be relevant to the subject of emotional pain. Various works have established the long-standing effects of emotional scarring, including how events can be so traumatic that witnesses are unable to express them. In the study of oral history, testimonies hold a relevant position about the interaction between oral and written sources on historical events. Dominick Lacapra has posited that outside of testimonies' value in working through symptoms of trauma, they provide a platform for individuals to tell stories that would otherwise not be recorded in history: Testimony also raises in acute form the role of memory, for it is typically memory that allows witnesses to access their experience of events, and, significantly, testimony has a distinctive dimension with respect to experience with its important but problematic relation to events. A witness gives a testimony or bears witness to the way he or she experienced events, and it is this experience, which has prima facie "authenticity," that at times cannot be accessed in other ways (Lacapra, 2016, p. 382). The value of oral testimony is not only as a supplement or correction to written histories but also as a valid approach to providing a critical analysis in the study of historical events whether they are problematic or not. It is from this insight that this research study seeks to incorporate the oral testimonies of those women who witnessed forced removals, to not only illuminate their individual experiences in the greater scheme of history but also contribute to the development of memory work in the field of oral history. The general dominance of male writings and experiences in written history is one of the reasons that this study proposes an investigation of forced removals with a specific focus on women's experiences. As articulated by Lucky Kekana in an interview: "…stories go hand in glove with building a man and a woman ... stories cannot be separated from men and women" (Hofmeyer, 1992, p. 43). Given the societal divisions imposed on women and men, it is expected that their experiences project a stark difference based on their status in society as a group. The importance of recording those experiences that belong to a group that has been subordinated in multiple respects (women) becomes more pressing in the investigation of historical events that generally affect a collective. In her study of gender and storytelling in the context of the former 14 Transvaal, Isabel Hofmeyer reports that although both men and women participated in this ritual of oral history, women’s stories were confined to the home whereas men generally occupied the public spaces: In terms of this differential definition, female storytelling inevitably suffered. Despite their acknowledged importance in education, women's stories were often regarded as a rather frivolous pastime that dealt with the imaginary and fictional. Male storytelling, on the other hand, was seen as more important, partly because of its content which dealt with the "real" world, partly because of its more sober performance, but also because it was enacted in a prestigious, public, male space and concerned itself with the socialization of men (Hofmeyer, 1992, p. 44). Laura Evans in “Gender, Generation and the Experiences of Farm Dwellers Resettled in the Ciskei Bantustan South Africa, 1960–1976”, argues that the individual experiences of forced removals were largely influenced by gendered and generational inequalities: While young men may have found in resettlement a way to improve their earning capacity and social status, for women and young men who never established themselves as migrants, resettlement offered respite from the spatial hegemonies of farm paternalism, coupled with greater economic exposure stemming from the loss of farm rations. The deepest impacts of ‘resettlement as proletarianization’ were, therefore, experienced by women and non-migrant men (Evans, 2013, p. 218). Considering that the specific conditions in townships and other resettlement areas varied in significant ways according to the local setting, the study by Laura Evans cannot be taken to apply in the context of the KwaZulu Bantustan as it did in Ciskei. While her gendered exploration of the socio-economic context of forced removals in the Ciskei is significant indeed, however, it does not speak to the experiences of the women in the context of Ladysmith and the distinct configuration of that social environment. It is in this respect, that the study of women's experiences in the Ezakheni Township in KwaZulu-Natal seeks to widen the study of diverse individual experiences of forced removals, particularly in the region of KwaZulu-Natal. Interviews and Participants: Phase one of the data-gathering process was identifying a member of the community in Ezakheni who would function as a liaison between myself and other members of the community who would be prospective participants in the study. In the conception of the project, my primary chosen liaison would have been my mother, who not only had extensive knowledge 15 of forced removals as she had witnessed them as a young adult, but with her untimely death, I then sought the help of my aunts in locating prospective participants. The community liaison I settled on was my cousin who was well-known in the community and had access to a range of community members who pointed us in the direction of our target group. (‘Snowball sampling’?) The second phase of the project was identifying suitable participants for the study, in this case, our search was limited to women aged sixty and above who witnessed forced removals as pre- teenagers, teenagers, or young adults. The search for participants was not limited to a particular section of the township, but in the end, four out of six participants were from Section B of the township, two were from D Section and the other two were from A Section. The township is divided into five sections: A, B, C, D, and E, with sections C and D consisting of sub-sections. The sub-sections developed under different circumstances in each township and will be discussed in detail in the following chapters. Before the start of each interview, participants signed a consent form agreeing to participate in the study and giving permission for the interview to be recorded digitally via phone. The interviews were conducted in the preferred language of the participants and thus they were all conducted in the isiZulu language. All respondents agreed to their full names being used in the study, they did so verbally but also signed off on it in the consent forms. In complying with the COVID regulations, each participant was provided with a mask to wear during the interview process which was also worn by myself and the community liaison who accompanied me to every interview. Every participant was provided with a portable bottle of sanitizer and was advised to sanitize before beginning the interview. It is worth noting that because my participants fall under the category of the elderly extra precautions were taken specifically in terms of physical contact. In some cases, the participants were in fact in possession of their own PPE equipment in anticipation of our meeting. Using what is called the “Life History Method”, the interview process took the form of a regular conversation which would allow the flow of the conversation to be partially controlled by the participant in that it would lessen any uneasiness on their side. This method is borrowed from the work of Dr. McKinley and Ahmed Veriava who similarly used the method while investigating the oral histories in post-apartheid South African townships (McKinley & Ahmed, 2008). Using such a method also allowed me as the interviewer to pose my questions in a way that draws from the general conversation to establish a dialogue that shows the 16 interviewee my link to the community rather than the first impression which positions me as an outsider. Thenjiwe Mazibuko lives in ‘Entokozweni Encane’ which is a sub-section of Section D in Ezakheni. She was twenty-eight years old in 1976 when she and her family were forcibly removed from Roosboom and placed in Ezakheni C Section. At the time of their removal, she was working as a teacher and continued teaching until her move to Mpumalanga in the mid- eighties. Today she lives alone in a house she purchased in the year 1996 upon her return. She lost both her parents in the subsequent years, leaving her and her siblings as the beneficiaries of a sum of money allocated to their father as compensation for the forced removals which took place in Roosboom. Bonisile Mchunu was twenty-three years old in 1972 when she was forcibly removed with her family from the rural/farm area ‘Hobsland’ and placed in Ezakheni C Section. She was living in a large communal area she shared with her husband, her infant baby, her brother-in-law as well as his wife, and two children. She was a housewife while her husband worked in a textile factory in Ladysmith town along with his brother. All six of them were crammed into the four- room house until her husband secured the house she lives in today, in Section B, with her children and grandchildren. Before getting married and moving to Hobsland, she lived with her parents in Umbulwane where removals also took place, although the residents of this area have not received any compensation for the forced removal. In other words, this respondent experienced forced removals twice during the apartheid years. In the case of her children, they were able to claim compensation as beneficiaries in the absence of her husband who passed in the year 1990. Of all the participants of this study, Delisile Mathebula was by far the youngest when she and her family were removed. She also provided the shortest testimony which can be attributed to the fact that she was eight years old when the removals took place in the year 1973. She and her family were initially placed in Section A of the township but were moved two weeks later due to a ghost presence in the house where they were placed. She lives with her daughter and grandson in Section B of the township today, in the same house, she and her family were moved to in 1973. As a former resident of Umbulwane, she too is still waiting to be compensated along with other residents. Although she was still a child during the removals, her testimony nevertheless contributes also to illustrating the post-removals experience. 17 Sibongile Ndlovu was seventeen years old in 1972, the oldest of seven children when her family was forcibly removed and placed in Section A in Ezakheni. Her mother stayed at home, tending to their family garden, and caring for the livestock. Her father worked at 'Spoornet' which is the former name of the company 'Transnet'. Having never married, she still lives in the house in A Section with her two sons, and four siblings. Her parents, and two of her siblings, have passed on, while her sister lives in another province. Similar to other former residents of Umbulwane, she has applied and is still waiting to be compensated for her family’s removal from their home more than fifty years ago. Thuli Yvonne Khanyile lives in Ezakheni with her youngest daughter in a house she purchased with her husband. She is initially from Utrecht where she grew up in with her parents and three siblings. She was fifteen years old in 1970 when they were forcibly removed and placed in 'Osizweni’ township in Newcastle, 50km away from their former home. Her story is similar to that of forcibly removed residents in Ezakheni, except for being outside of Ladysmith, thus not within the scope of this study. I contacted Ntombifuthi Shongwe through the above-mentioned participant Thuli Khanyile who directed me to Ntombifuthi as one person she knows from Utrecht who also happens to live in Ezakheni. Ntombifuthi was eighteen years old in 1970 when she and her family were forcibly removed from their rural home in Utrecht to Osizweni township in Newcastle. She arrived in Ezakheni, E Section in the year 2000 with her now ex-husband until 2007 when their marriage ended. She has been living in a sub-section of B Section since 2007. This sub-section was dubbed “Alex” by residents of the township because of its deplorable conditions and because the poorest of the poor are housed there. The name is borrowed from “Alexander Township” in Johannesburg, Gauteng, which is famous in South Africa for being one of the worst townships to live in due to the crime rate, and overall bad living conditions. Ntombifuthi lives alone in ‘Alex’, having never had children. She has also not seen her parents since she and her husband moved to Ezakheni in 2007. She, her parents, and her younger brother arrived in a four-room house in Osizweni in 1970 and according to her, that was the beginning of the demise of her family life. The deplorable living conditions of their new home aside, she insists that had they not been forcibly removed, her brother would have certainly lived past the age of seventeen years. The township was different in many ways from the rural life they led in Utrecht: her brother, being taken with how fast things were in the new environment, made 'bad friends', took part in illegal activities, and died from several stab wounds at age seventeen during a robbery they'd initiated with his friends. She recalls how her parents constantly 18 worried about her brother, wished they had not been removed from their home, and desperately wanted to return. Her testimony is marked with anger and resentment, she is undoubtedly still overwhelmed with sadness after all these years. Textual Analysis The strategy I applied in analysing the extensive data reservoir is a “general inductive approach” which describes a: “systematic procedure for analysing qualitative data where the analysis is guided by specific objectives” (Thomas, 2003, p. 2). Following this strategy, once the interviews were transcribed, the first step was developing the ‘objectives or categories I would be using as guides based on the key questions of this study. Within this process, I was able to develop three categories or ‘themes’ that were evident in each of the accounts provided by the participants, and their shared narratives which included similar processes, for instance, how the removals were conducted by the authorities, the state of the relocation areas in which they were situated, as well as their shared struggles and grievances subsequent to the removals. In this section, I will briefly discuss the themes and what informed them, as mentioned before the participants shared their experiences of the forced removals from their homes which were unique of course but had in common shared narratives and traumas. I have not applied a specific hierarchy of importance in the development of the categories, but I think it is important to note that the overarching narrative throughout the data set was one of compensation or restitution or the lack thereof. More than three times some of the participants went straight to discussing how they were monetarily compensated for the forced removal and their dissatisfaction while those who had not received any compensation voiced their anger and disgruntlement for that fact. In even the very early stages of the analysis what became evident to me was shared anger and resentment for the removals amongst the participants which was accompanied also by a conscious or perhaps unconscious narrative of acceptance. In one way or another, each participant shared with me the memory of their lives before being removed in a way that was nostalgic but also with an air of having adapted, a kind of understanding that I can describe simply as: “That was then, the events cannot be undone, and this is and has been my life for a long time”. Compensation: As mentioned before, all the participants were concerned with compensation in varying degrees; some were dissatisfied with the compensation they had received, others were visibly 19 upset about not yet having been compensated, and one participant showed great disappointment in the fact that I was not a government official coming to deliver news about her claim. Three participants who had been widowed for some years now spoke about the “unfairness” of the criteria used in allocating those who would receive compensation. This is because as widows, regardless of the nature of the marriage (in community of property or under customary law), they could not claim compensation on behalf of their deceased husbands. Those widows who were eligible to make a claim can only do so on behalf of their children (minors), adult children are allowed to file their claims but ultimately, regardless of how long the marriage, or the fact that these women were already married and living in their matrimonial homes during the forced removals, they had no claim to monetary compensation. The issue of restitution is a controversial one indeed, and it is understandable that people who experienced the removals are so preoccupied with being compensated because of the continuous cycle of poverty and social dislocation they have been living through. One participant, an elderly woman in her 90s, was living alone in a house that looked like it could have fallen on our heads at any moment, and this was the state of almost all the houses I visited while conducting the interviews. Gendered discrimination: More than half of the participants spoke directly of the challenges they faced particularly because of their gender, issues ranging from their exclusion in land ownership particularly as black women were excluded by apartheid law from owning land. Some of the participants referred to the disparity in wages between them and their male counterparts. One participant who referred to herself as having been a “housewife” (Bonisile Mchunu)spoke clearly about her dependence on her husband and ultimately her in-laws after the passing of her husband. She married before the age of eighteen and had been living with her husband and family on their property for some years when they were forcibly removed to Ezakheni. She could not lay claim to any compensation as a spouse, but her children were able to claim as beneficiaries and did receive financial compensation. She has gone from relying on her husband to relying on her children at the age of seventy-two years. This is not uncommon for women in black communities. Compared to their white counterparts, it is a clear indication of a double dose of inequality. While white women were allowed to inherit land legally, black women were legally excluded from this since they were expected (by traditional custom) to marry another male (a relative of the deceased husband) in the family if they wished to continue living on that property. Some of the accounts provided by the participants pointed to a general practice of exclusion from political participation or any kind of substantive community engagement 20 particularly because they were women and thus were expected to care for the home and their families, which was the space dedicated to women. Prevailing Issues: One of the prevailing issues in Ezakheni is a lack of sufficient space to house growing families. A common sight in the township is informal dwellings (zinc and wooden) in the yards of residents. One participant, Delisile Mathebula, has built a rondavel in her backyard as a space she rents out to contribute to the family income. She lives only with her daughter and grandson, so the four-room house is sufficient for them in terms of living space. This is not the case however for those families which have expanded beyond the limitations of the typical apartheid-style dwelling provided for families suffering forced removal. The relentless cycle of poverty is evident as the participants speak of the ways they have attempted to make ends meet over the years, but it is also a visible poverty. By ‘visible’ I mean that one only has to look at their homes and the arrangements inside to see the frugality and precariousness of their lives. One participant awkwardly apologised for not having anything to offer us to eat because “the months have been tough” and I must note that at the time the interviews were conducted there was a serious water shortage in Ezakheni, and residents didn’t even have drinking water. 21 Chapter Outline: The first chapter of the research paper delves into the history of land dispossession in South Africa, starting from the colonial period and continuing through the apartheid era. The chapter includes an extensive literature review on the topic of land dispossession in the country, as well as a brief history of the country's formation. The chapter also covers five case studies related to the research, including the area of focus. The purpose of including the participants' original areas of residence is to provide a better understanding of the homes they were forced to leave behind, which will help in comprehending the reality of the participants' expressions of life in their respective relocation areas. An extensive portion of this part of the literature is derived from the work of Cheryl Walker and Laurine Platzky in The Surplus People (1948). The chapter ultimately provides the socio-economic and legislative background for which the research can be contextualized and further outlines the significance of the study by drawing on key ideas related to the history of land ownership in South Africa. Chapter two relates the current literature to the data collected during the interviews. This chapter begins to draw out the experiences of the participants in their relocation areas and helps us to better understand the link between access to land and gender. Moreover, it will enable us to position the experiences of black women, by tracing their exclusion in relation to their shared histories. The third chapter discusses the relationship between gender and economic agency during the apartheid era. It does so by examining women's ability to access housing and employment opportunities. The chapter takes a close look at the experiences of women living in both rural and urban areas and aims to highlight the disparities in access to land and work opportunities between black and white people. Additionally, the chapter contains accounts from respondents who share how they were able to support themselves and their families despite facing racial and gendered discrimination. The final chapter of the report delves into the land reform policy that has been in place since 1994, ostensibly to provide remedies for people who were previously dispossessed of their land during the apartheid era. The chapter compares the mechanisms of the policy with the experiences of those who have gone through the process. The respondents reported facing violent experiences during forced removals and similar challenges when rebuilding their lives in the relocation area. However, even after receiving compensation, many respondents continue 22 to face socio-economic struggles. Restitution and compensation remain contentious issues for those affected. 23 Chapter One: Anybody who is tempted to believe the Nationalist government's propaganda that South Africa is peacefully progressing towards a more equitable and humane society, complete with a new, enlarged Constitution, needs only to glance at this book in order to be disillusioned. No amount of cosmetics can disguise the true face of apartheid which is revealed by the evidence accumulated by the ‘Surplus People Project’ which forms the basis of this book. This evidence is more than a seemingly endless catalogue of human suffering designed to produce a purely emotional response of either breast-beating or almsgiving. It is a statement of the costs which black South Africans have had to pay, and continue to pay, for the economic prosperity of whites (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 3). The above statement rings true today, almost 30 years after the abolition of apartheid; it speaks directly to the importance of the exploration of forced removals and its inescapable effects on the many black people still confined in townships today. There is a considerable body of literature on historical forced removals from rural and urban areas. Scholars and organizations have done extensive work in investigating, reporting and publishing on apartheid-era forced removals and their effects on the many black people removed from their homes. There exists, however, less literature on the experiences of black women who made up the bulk of removed people, since they were often ‘left behind’ in the resettlement areas as many black men were often constrained to become migrant workers to earn a living (Platzky & Walker, 1985). This study thus intends to expand the work on the experiences and socio-economic impact faced by black women as a consequence of the enduring effects of forced removals. The long-term exclusion of poor black women from accessing land or owning land can be traced to the sequence of laws enacted during the colonial and apartheid eras that rendered them non-citizens (in the bantustans) or legal minors in their own country. Even with the establishment of post- apartheid land reform policies that seek to rectify past dispossession, the respondents of this study continue to share narratives of enduring exclusion or the insufficiency of the government’s remedies. Capturing the experiences of the women who participated in this study suggests the deeply structural dispossession effected by spatial alienation, and its trans- generational impact, given the role women play in reproductive labour. 24 History of Land Dispossession in South Africa: The removal and relocation of the non-white population of South Africa in the advent of apartheid is not a phenomenon of the Nationalist government but rather a continuation of a long process of dispossession that began in the 17th century (Platzky & Walker, 1985). After Jan van Riebeeck arrived in the Cape to establish a base for the Dutch East India Company, one of his initial actions was to displace the Khoi people by driving their cattle out of their grazing land (Platzky & Walker, 1985). This displacement was formalized just two years later through an agreement which read: The Kaapmans shall permanently dwell on the eastern side of the Salt River and the fresh river Liesbeck, as the pastures on this side are not even sufficient for our own needs (Journal of Jan van Riebeeck, entry dated 5 July 1658) (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 71). This agreement ultimately allowed “Only those Khoi who were prepared to work for the Company or the first white settlers were allowed to remain on their former grazing lands” (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 71). This tactic allowed white settlers to control access to land in the 17th century and inaugurated a continuing set of discriminatory practices in the centuries that followed (Platzky & Walker, 1985). To understand the policies utilized by the apartheid government we must first look at the ‘native policies’ established by the white settlers in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the period between the 18th and 19th centuries, white settlers had been moving further into the interior of the Cape, and as a result the Khoi and San (Bushmen), along with other chiefdoms in the north and east of the Cape, were further dispossessed of their land driving them into smaller areas of land (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Nearing the end of the 19th century, white settlers had established control over most of what is present-day South Africa, and the creation of what was called “reserves” was established (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The land was divided based on the settler territories at the time: the Transvaal and the Orange Free State which were the Boer republics, the Cape and Natal belonging to the British and finally the numerous chiefdoms retained a small portion of their former lands (Platzky & Walker, 1985). This division did not take place without contention and resistance from the indigenous people which (Platzky & Walker, 1985) noted as the reason for the establishment of “reserves”: It was precisely because of this resistance that the whites did not succeed in taking all the land for themselves, but were obliged to recognize certain areas as reserves (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 72). Writing on the formation of ‘Bantustans’, Barbara 25 Rogers notes that the concept of “native reserves” is “almost as old as European occupation in South Africa” (Rogers, 1976). Transvaal and the Orange Free State: White settlement in the Transvaal was predominantly in the eastern and northern areas of the Transvaal as permitted by African chiefs in the area (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The Boer farms were located on the edges of the chiefs’ territories which already had African people living on that land (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Most of the Boers were hunters and cattle farmers not primarily farming the land, as a result, they encouraged the Africans in the area to settle and work on it as tenants (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Their rent could be paid in either labour or produce. This is considered the early beginning of the labour tenant and sharecropper systems (Platzky & Walker, 1985). As a consequence of British expansion which led to their occupation of the Transvaal from 1877-1888, the Boers launched a series of conquests against the independent chiefdoms leading to further loss of land on the part of indigenous Africans (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Due to resistance from the African chiefs, the Boers were unsuccessful in acquiring all the land for themselves thus the first of a few African reserves was outlined in 1876 (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Ultimately, only 2 120 square miles of the total amount of land in the Transvaal was declared as reserves (Davenport & Hunt, 1974, p. 9). In the Orange Free State, the Boers were more successful in dispossessing the local population of their land (Platzky & Walker, 1985). As a result, only two reserves were created in the Orange Free State territory by 1905 totaling a mere 128 square miles (Davenport & Hunt, 1974, p. 9). The first reserve, located in Witziehoek on the northern edge of the Drakensberg was comprised of a few farms which the Free State government recognized as belonging to the Sotho chief Mopeli in 1857 (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 73). The second reserve was in Thaba ’Nchu and belonged to the ‘Barolong’ people who had settled there in 1833 under Chief Moroka (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 73). In 1884, the Boers annexed the territory and acknowledged two small African locations and 95 farms owned by individual Barolong landowners. The majority of the land, however, was reserved for the Boers (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 74). By the late 19th century, most of the African communities in the Boer republics resided on lands controlled by white settlers. However, according to Platzky and Walker (1985), although some Africans were coerced into entering labour tenant agreements with white landowners, many others managed to maintain a significant degree of economic self- 26 sufficiency (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 74). Only a select few Africans had land ownership rights; purchasing land was restricted in both republics: In the Orange Free State freehold title among Africans was confined to the few Barolong farms that were not bought out by whites. In the Transvaal Africans could only acquire individual title to land under a complicated and restricting system of trusteeship – the land had to be held in trust for them, by the Commissioner for Native Affairs (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 74). The Cape and Northern Natal: In both the Cape and Natal, the policies towards the indigenous populations developed differently than in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. According to Platzky and Walker (1985), the 'native policy' in the Cape was based on more liberal principles compared to the other settler territories. In the Cape, the economy was stronger, and the settler population was more established with a “liberalizing influence” from merchants and missionaries on the indigenous population (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 75). Throughout the years, the Eastern Frontier in the Cape experienced a series of wars between the settlers and African chiefdoms residing in that area. Consequently, by the 1800s, most of the land along the west of Kei River opened up for white settlement (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The Mfecane wars were a series of Zulu and other Nguni wars, as well as forced migrations, that took place in the second and third decades of the 19th century. These events significantly altered the demographic, social, and political landscape of southern and central Africa, as well as parts of eastern Africa (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2025). During the colonial period, some Africans sided with the white settlers, resulting in the creation of reserves for them amidst white-owned farms. However, similar to other regions of the country, the reserves were not sufficient to accommodate all the people who were previously residing west of the Kei River (Platzky & Walker, 1985). By the end of the 19th century, most of the African population in the Eastern Cape was residing on land now owned by the settlers. The ‘native policy’ deployed here was based on the principles of Sir George Grey who was Governor of the Cape from 1854 to 1861 and held the belief of “civilising the indigenous African population to create an enduring and peaceful master-servant relationship in a civilized context” (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 75). As a result, some Africans on white-owned land were full-time servants, cash tenants, or sharecroppers, while others held individual titles to their land unlike the widespread labour tenancy developed in the northern territories (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The policy was implemented to limit the authority of the "haughty, hereditary chiefs" while simultaneously 27 promoting the growth of a restricted group of African small-scale landowners and food producers who could have a vested interest in colonial society (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 76). Sir Grey had hoped that those Africans who could not access land to own would be forced to work for the white settlers in the area (Platzky & Walker, 1985). While the land policies were partially effective as African chiefs and other individuals whose land was at risk resisted, the native population in the Eastern Cape was integrated into the settler communities much earlier and more extensively than any other region in the country. From 1853 onwards, Africans who owned land and met certain education standards were granted the right to vote alongside white citizens. However, the number of eligible black voters was deliberately kept low to prevent them from outnumbering their white counterparts (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Whereas in the northern territories, the general rule was “No equality in church or state” (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 76). Due to the lack of military power, the colonial administration of the Cape could not acquire land for white settlement on the east of the Kei River and so to maintain their authority along the coast the territories were annexed and brought under British control as reserves (Platzky & Walker, 1985) In contrast to Natal, African chiefdoms in Eastern Cape lost more land despite greater and more unified reserves (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The British administration in Natal faced several challenges that weakened their position. Firstly, there was a refugee crisis to contend with, which put a strain on resources. Additionally, the administration was reluctant to spend more money on the colony. Finally, to the north of the Tugela River lay the powerful Zulu Kingdom, which would prove difficult to conquer (Platzky & Walker, 1985). They addressed the refugee problem by designating unproductive land as reserves, avoiding extra administrative costs in the Natal colony (Platzky & Walker, 1985). In 1887, after the Anglo-Zulu War, the British annexed the Zulu Kingdom and created scattered reserves, totaling less land than previously held (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The British declared 13,882 square miles as reserves by 1905, leaving the rest of Natal for white settlement or state land (Davenport & Hunt, 1974, p. 9). Unlike the Cape, the colonial administration in Natal incorporated traditional forms of government by including chiefs in their administration system. This allowed for the African population to be governed by customary law alongside their legal system (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The purpose of this system was to reduce administrative costs and ensure order. The Secretary of Native Affairs at the time believed that the Zulu power had taught Natal Africans to obey their rulers without question, which is why this system was implemented (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Many white farmers in Natal stopped 28 farming and moved to towns, allowing African landowners and market farmers to take over the produce market in order to pay the required taxes (Platzky & Walker, 1985) By the 1860s, some small-scale producers had started buying land by forming syndicates with missionary support, despite living on either white-owned, mission land, leased land or state land (Platzky & Walker, 1985). By 1910, Africans in Natal had acquired almost 160 000 hectares of land which were located throughout the former colony: This was the origin of the major category of black spots in that province fifty years later. Matiwane’s Kop, Roosboom, Steincoalspruit, Action Homes, Free State, Jubilee, Hlatikhulu, Meran, Thembalihle, Hopewell, Prospect Farm and Besterspruit – these and all other freehold farms later termed ‘black spots’ by the Nationalists were bought during this time by means of a title deed that assured new owners that the land would be theirs ‘in perpetuity’ (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 79). Mineral Discovery and Cheap Labour: The latter half of the 19th century proved to be a turning point in South Africa due to the discovery of diamonds in 1867 and later gold in 1886 (Guiding SA, 2011). The discovery of diamonds in what is now the city of Kimberly in the Northern Cape was the beginning of major economic changes in the country: South Africa’s diamond-mining industry dates back to 1867, when diamonds were discovered near Kimberley in the Northern Cape. The Kimberley diamond fields, and later discoveries in Gauteng, the Free State, and along the Atlantic coast, emerged as major sources of gem-quality diamonds, securing South Africa’s position as the world’s leading producer in the mid-20th century (Guiding SA, 2011, p. 1). The discovery of diamonds changed not only the landscape but also the lives of the different groups of people who lived in the area. The site of the diamond discovery belonged to a group of people known as the “Griquas” and their area called “Griqualand West” (Heritage Publishers, 2020). The Griqua people were of mixed-race ethnicity and are believed to be the first people to start digging for diamonds on the southern bank of the Vaal (Heritage Publishers, 2020). The leader of the Griqua people, Nicolaas Waterboer, allowed Africans to mine in the area without charge while requiring white diggers to seek his permission before mining on the south bank of the river (Heritage Publishers, 2020). Following the first discovery, more diamonds were found on farms that lay 30km south of the Vaal River and these farms belonged 29 to the Boers and governed by the Orange Free State (Heritage Publishers, 2020). The ownership of the land in the area was disputed by various groups, including the Griquas, the Batlhaping, as well as the two republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State whose territories were adjacent to the Vaal and Orange rivers (Heritage Publishers, 2020) Ultimately, the Orange Free State government was the first to declare laws on diamond mining, which resulted in prohibiting African diggers from obtaining claim licenses (Heritage Publishers, 2020). Governor Sir Henry Barkly of the Cape intervened and established a committee to resolve the dispute over land ownership and control of the diamond fields (Heritage Publishers, 2020). The committee, which was headed by the Governor of Natal, Robert Keate, ruled in favour of the Griqua people and this meant that the Griquas would receive the land where diamonds were discovered, including the area where Kimberley was later built (Heritage Publishers, 2020). The Griquas were not helped by the agreement as they constantly clashed with the diggers over claim licenses, exacerbating racial tensions between black and white miners (Heritage Publishers, 2020). This led the Griqua leader to seek British assistance, leading to the annexation of Griqualand West by the Cape Colony in 1871, which enabled the British to control the diamond fields (Heritage Publishers, 2020). In 1888, Cecil John Rhodes established the mining company "De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd" which went on to dominate the diamond industry in South Africa (Israeli Diamond Industry, 2023). The discovery of diamonds in South Africa shifted the country from an agricultural to an industrial society, a transformation that was further accelerated by the discovery of gold in 1886 (Potenza, 2019 ). The discovery intensified British ambitions to create a federation of its colonies and the Boer territories, which was unsuccessful until the British annexation of the Transvaal in 1877 (National Army Museum, n.d.). Following the military conflict between the Transvaal Boers and the Bapedi people of the eastern Transvaal, the British seized the opportunity to annex the Transvaal territory under claims of creating stability and economic growth in the region (National Army Museum, n.d.). Between 1880 and 1881, the Boers rebelled against the annexation by the British. In 1881, in what is known as the "Battle of Majuba Hill", the British army was defeated, forcing them to withdraw from the area. This conflict became known as the "First War of Independence" (Byrnes & Library of Congress Federal Research Division, 1996). The discovery of gold deposits in the Witwatersrand was a major economic and political development in the history of the country. Although Africans had been mining and trading gold for centuries, the discovery in the Witwatersrand led to British companies taking over the gold 30 mines (Byrnes & Library of Congress Federal Research Division, 1996). The gold discovery, made by two diggers underground at a farm called “Langlaagte” in the Transvaal, was bountiful and led to the development of various mining towns along the curve of the gold reef which would later be named the “Witwatersrand” (Rand Refinery, 2013). The discovery further intensified the existing tension between the Boers and the British mining companies over the control of the Witwatersrand, leading to the ‘Anglo-Boer War’ of 1899 (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Following his appointment as prime minister of the Cape, Cecil John Rhodes had succeeded in manipulating laws in the Cape to benefit his mining company and the industry as a whole – forcing more Africans into cheap wage labour on the mines and railways (Potenza, 2019). Rhodes not only opposed the policies of Boers in the Transvaal but planned to overthrow their government and seize control of the gold mines to further the interests of the British mining companies (Potenza, 2019). In 1885, he resigned as prime minister of Cape after an unsuccessful attack on the Transvaal Republic, known as the "Jameson Raid". (Potenza, 2019). The “South African War” or “Anglo-Boer War” fought between 1899 and 1802 solidified the British Empire’s ambitions of unifying the territories in South Africa under a political Union (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The Boer army had gained several victories at the beginning of the war but that soon ended when the British army not only received reinforcements in the form of more soldiers but also proceeded to burn down many farms belonging to the Boers (Byrnes & Library of Congress Federal Research Division, 1996). It is reported that the victory of the British army is attributed to this strategy of torching Boer territories: The British ultimately succeeded in breaking this resistance, but only by adopting a scorched- earth policy. In 1901 and 1902, the British torched more than 30,000 farms in the South African Republic and the Orange Free State and placed all the Afrikaner women and children in concentration camps, where, because of overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, more than 25,000 perished (Byrnes & Library of Congress Federal Research Division, 1996). In May of 1902, the war was concluded with the signing of a peace treaty known as the “Treaty of Vereeniging” bringing the two Boer republics under British rule and significantly excluding the black population from acquiring political rights (Augliere, 2018). The formation of the Union of South Africa in the year 1910 ensured the domination of all non-white people by the white minority when Great Britain passed the “South Africa Act” (South African History Online, 2016). The Act united the colonies and the republics under British rule except for “home-rule” for the Boer republics while consequently only property-owning black Africans in the Cape colony were granted the right to vote (South African History Online, 2016). 31 The Making of Modern South Africa and Migrant Labour: Following the developments outlined above, the African population was pushed into further marginalization as new devastating policies on land were declared by the new Union of South Africa (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Platzky and Walker (1985) note that: “Gold and cheap labour to mine it have been the two major commodities used in building modern South Africa” (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 80). Due to the rapid growth of an urban population that opened new farming markets, white commercial farming developed (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The demand for land had intensified and white farmers across the country used their political power to further limit the access smallholders and peasants had to the land (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Many white farmers were against the reserve system including cash tenancy and sharecropping as they viewed these systems as limiting their access to land and labour that they felt belonged to them (Platzky & Walker, 1985). To retain and acquire more land for themselves, the Orange Free State government in 1885 had an ‘anti-squatting’ law passed that would only allow five African families to rent or share crops on each white-owned farm (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Those Africans living on state-owned land in the Transvaal were required for the first time in 1903 to pay rent followed by the reactivation of anti-squatting laws in 1908 (Platzky & Walker, 1985). In Natal during the 1890s, the administration prohibited individuals from owning land in the mission reserves. Later in 1903, the Lands Department was instructed to decline any bids made by Africans during public sales of state land (Platzky & Walker, 1985). As opposed to the view held by white farmers about the reserves, the mining industry was in favour of the system as it would grant them access to cheap labour which they needed for the mines (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The reserves would make way for workers to become migrant labourers as their bases would be in the reserves where their families would be situated, keeping general labour costs low (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The low wages offered by mine owners would be justified on the basis that the workers’ families in the reserves were making a living off the land further cutting costs by not having to provide housing or schooling for the families of the workers (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The migrant labour system made it ever more possible to exploit workers as they could be easily replaced, making it difficult for them to ask for higher wages or better working conditions (Platzky & Walker, 1985). According to Platzky and Walker (1985), the system of migrant labour was accepted to some extent by rural residents who were not prepared to permanently leave their homes in the reserves. These residents were willing to leave the reserves temporarily in order to earn wages that would cover their taxes and provide for their families. Mining companies in the Cape were able to further their interests through the 32 passing of the “Glen Grey Act” in 1894 (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The Act would introduce individual land tenure in the place of communal tenure and would allow for a limited system of self-governance primarily in favour of those who owned land (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Due to the mass resistance from the rural people, the Act was applied in only a few areas although the authors noted the far-reaching impact of the Act: Segregated African reserves to supply the towns with a migrant labour force, with limited forms of local government within them, would be the policy goals of the extremely powerful mining and industrial sectors of the South Africa economy in the first half of the 20th century (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 82). The strategic relocation of black people from their land during the Anglo-Boer War in the Orange Free State is an occurrence less spoken about than the impact of the war on Boer farms (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The authors have noted the well-detailed conditions of the concentration camps in which the Boers were confined. By contrast, however, the black people removed from white-owned land and placed in the thirty-one concentration camps established for them met a far worse fate (Platzky & Walker, 1985). When the war ended, the large concentration camps were disbanded and those people were distributed to white farms across the province but, many remained stranded and in poverty in the smaller camps for some years after the end of the war (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Waves of land dispossession continued to take place into the 20th century, accelerated during the apartheid period. The formation of the Union in 1910 did not bring an end to the contestations of the various white interest groups in the country (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Although the white ruling group agreed that a uniform ‘native policy’ was necessary, they could not agree on a standard policy due to the different African administration systems that had been established in the four territories before the creation of the Union (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The first government of the Union of 1910 was the South African Party of Louis Botha and Jan Smuts which was also the party of the mining and industrial interest groups and thus their native policy was based on ensuring a stable supply of labour for the industry and curbing the growth of African middle class (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The political power of the farmers was also taken into consideration and consequently their efforts to quash the independent African peasantry in rural areas were supported by the Union - hence the introduction of the “1913 Natives Land Act” (Platzky & Walker, 1985). 33 1913 Natives Land Act: This Act is considered to have been the basis of all subsequent legislation concerning native policy (Platzky & Walker, 1985). This is because it ‘lawfully’ restricted Africans from acquiring land anywhere except in the reserves they already occupied including renting any land in the future (Platzky & Walker, 1985). It also meant that in future, those Africans living on white- owned land as tenants or sharecroppers would ultimately be relocated into reserves unless they were labour tenants or full-time wage labourers (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The Act favoured both farmers and mining by limiting African living areas and ensuring an abundant labour supply (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The Land Act of 1913 allocated only 7% of the land in South Africa to Africans, while the rest was reserved for the white minority, exacerbating the system of migrant labour (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Although the Union recognized the inadequacy of the land they had allocated to Africans, it was undecided on which other areas would be declared as part of the reserves, so the decision was left for later (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The Natives Land Act thus turned into law the process of dispossessing Africans of their land that had been going on for the past 200 years. Law, not war was the final means of conquest (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 85). In 1916 the “Beaumont Commission” was established to recommend which other areas of land could be added to the scheduled land list of 1913 (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The commission proposed that an additional 7 million hectares of land be declared as part of the reserves and this was met with immediate rejection by the farmers who did not want to let go of any more land (Platzky & Walker, 1985). As a result, the proposal was rejected and instead, the government appointed five local Committees that would review the Beaumont Commission’s recommendations (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The local committees successfully allocated just under 6 million hectares of land, instead of the original goal of 7 million hectares (Platzky & Walker, 1985). In 1936, the recommendation was passed into law although it had been applied even before legislation was passed (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The Natives Administration Act of 1927 was the first step in establishing a unified native policy across the country as it empowered the Prime Minister and his cabinet to rule in all African areas. Furthermore, section 5 of the Act provided that the Prime Minister may: Whenever he deems it expedient in the general public interest, order the removal of any tribe or portion thereof or any Native from any place to any other place within the Union upon such conditions as he may determine (p. 88). 34 The Act limited regular courts' powers in African affairs, boosted traditional chiefs' authority, and undermined non-traditional organizations like the ANC. (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Most importantly, section 5 of the Act paved the way for the removal and relocation of Africans that would take place in the future. In 1936, the persistent disagreement regarding the treatment of native Africans among the provinces was finally resolved when General Hertzog's coalition government reached a compromise. The deal involved African people losing their right to vote in the Cape, and in return, the reserves would be granted additional land allocation (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The South African Native Trust (Bantu Trust/Development Trust) was also established in the same year to administer the released land thus becoming the registered owner of almost all the reserves instead of the occupants receiving title deeds (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The Land Act of 1936 ensured the exclusion of many African farms as well as state- owned land that Africans had already been occupying from the list of areas that would be part of the reserves (Platzky & Walker, 1985). As a result, many African farms became 'black spots' in white areas and Africans living on state-owned land became illegal squatters, despite many having lived in these areas for generations (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The reserves: By 1939, the land for the incoming apartheid government’s "Bantustan policy" had already been outlined. The establishment of reserves was rooted in conquest and colonization, serving the interests of the white minority. (Platzky & Walker, 1985). In 1944, the Department of Native Affairs released a report on the conditions of the reserves in the Northern areas saying: “Areas of relative agricultural wealth – many had been grain and cattle exporting regions in the 19th century – had become places of frequent scarcities and famine” (Native Affairs Department, 1944, p. 93). The Native Economic Commission in 1932, described the situation as a “race against time to prevent the destruction of large grazing areas, the erosion and denudation of the soils and the drying up of springs” (Native Economic Commission, 1932, p. 93). The deterioration of crops, coupled with increasing landlessness in reserves, threatened both political stability and migrant labour (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The people who could no longer sustain themselves through agriculture were compelled to relocate to urban areas and work in factories. This situation caused concern among government planners as it went against the Union's objectives (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Instead of allowing people to move freely off the reserves or increasing the amount of land available to them, the Union decided to cram more people into the already crowded reserves. Platzky and Walker wrote: 35 Their solution was betterment planning, the first of which were introduced in the 1930s and 1940s: cattle-culling, the fencing off of fields and grazing land from residential areas, the moving of people into villages set away from the farming land (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 93). The government's attempt to increase agricultural output through land-use control failed to address the issue of overpopulation, which only worsened over time (Platzky & Walker, 1985). In resistance to the new controls, people in the reserves continued to migrate into urban areas in search of work. This led to widespread urban landlessness and a massive housing crisis that the Nationalist government inherited in 1948 (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The KwaZulu homeland government had too little power to coordinate developmental projects in their own domain, either way, the key decisions were largely taken by the white people beyond their control. Further, although half of the populations of the homelands are permanent residents in urban areas, the central government denied the homeland administration of any substantial urban roles (Butler, et al., 1978). Case Studies: This section is dedicated solely to discussing the areas of removal from which the participants of this study originated. The focus is on four areas, this was not an intended approach of the study as there were no restrictions on the criteria of the participants' origins, thus the focus areas developed naturally from the data gathering process based on where the participants of this study were forcibly removed. It is important to note that not all the participants of this study are from areas that explicitly experienced removals, in the case of two participants we will be discussing an area that was under the threat of removal which ultimately did not take place for reasons that will be discussed later. The focus areas which will be discussed are Roosboom, Umbulwane, and Utrecht. Umbulwane Located in Ladysmith, Northern Natal, by 1980, the community of Umbulwane had a population of about 1000 people (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Umbulwane was originally a black ‘freehold’ area with “small wattle-and-daub” houses which were scattered across the area on the outskirts of urban Ladysmith (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 266). Platzky and Walker (1985) conducted a survey in the area and found that 41 families, mostly African but including some Indian and coloured families, owned land there. The area had other inhabitants who were tenants of the landowners. Even though some of the people living there were classified as 36 "coloured" by the government, they were Zulu-speaking and had integrated into the community despite being considered a separate group in the eyes of apartheid planners (Platzky & Walker, 1985). At the time of the survey, it was one of the fourteen areas designated as black spots and under threat of being removed elsewhere in the district of Ladysmith (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The residents of Umbulwane had settled in the area and paid rates, but officials refused to recognize it as an African residential area (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Despite being ratepayers, the municipality refused to provide essential services such as water, sanitation, roads, and waste collection to the community. Instead, it was marked for future industrial development (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Despite living in Umbulwane for more than 25 years, some for almost 50 years, the residents were classified as illegal squatters by the government, despite having reported their long tenure to the Association for Rural Advancement Land Rights Advocacy organization (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Many of them had been forced to move to the area because they had already beenevicted previously from white farms, or their homes were destroyed by government policies of removals (Platzky & Walker, 1985). The first sign of impending removal for the community of Umbulwane came in in June-July of 1980 when officials arrived and began painting house numbers on their properties (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Platzky and Walker cite a memorandum from Umbulwane residents which noted the experiences of this community: On the 19th August 1980 we saw the Municipality and the Drakensberg Administration Board as well as police, all armed with guns, and a bulldozer. They started to break down houses. Most of the owners of these houses were not home but at work or fetching wood. When they came from work, they found their houses broken down. Some were left with only one small room (Memorandum from the people of Umbulwane, 1980). Only the houses belonging to tenants were demolished, and the community was verbally warned that officials would be back to complete the demolitions if they had not moved within the following month (Platzky & Walker, 1985). A town clerk later claimed that despite not giving the community notices in advance, they had only demolished unoccupied houses: I am involved in the removal of the illegal structures, and the health hazard… the people do not fall under my jurisdiction. I am not putting out people – just demolishing unoccupied illegal structures (Sunday Tribune, 1980). In October of 1980, officials from the Municipal and Administration Board returned to paint new numbers on the houses of some tenants; although this time they used red paint, rather than 37 the white paint used on their first visit in the area (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Additionally, landowners were required to obtain licenses from the Drakensberg Admission Board in order to rent out portions of their land (Platzky & Walker, 1985). From the very beginning, some of the landowners recognized the threat posed to tenants as a threat to their own ownership and began organizing to resist the demolitions (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Landowners sent a memorandum to the chief commissioner for Natal asking that the demolitions be halted and that in future they should be notified in advance on matters that concern them and their community (Platzky & Walker, 1985). As word got out about the demolitions happening in Umbulwane, newspapers in Natal and Johannesburg started covering the events of the area. This publicity, along with the strong levels of community organization, had a significant impact on the local administration, leading to the cessation of demolitions in October (Platzky & Walker, 1985). In February of 1981, Pieter Koornhof who was Minister of Black Affairs at the time, acknowledged the receipt of the memorandum from the residents of Umbulwane stating that the matter was under review: If the people are eventually resettled they will be removed depending on merit to appropriate accommodation at Ezakheni or to such accommodation as may be arranged by the people with the chiefs concerned (Koornhof, 1981, p. 275). In March of 1981, the community of Umbulwane received an official response in the form of a letter which Platzky and Walker (1985) have described as intentionally divisive, since it sought to drive a wedge between the tenants and landowners. The community sent a reply in June of 1981 that voiced their dissatisfaction with the administration’s response to their memorandum, and which read in part: Umbulwane has not been set aside as an urban Black residential area, but it is incorrect that Umbulwane is not owned by Blacks. As we explained in our memorandum it was bought by our grandfathers more than 70 years ago. Perhaps the government is unaware that Umbulwane has been paying rates to the local authority up to now but getting nothing from the Town Council in return. We have no services at all (Platzky & Walker, 1985, p. 276). In April of 1982, Koornhof confirmed to a newspaper that Umbulwane and other areas in Ladysmith considered black spots would be moved after deliberations with the community leaders and the KwaZulu government: 38 The actual removals would only take place once the necessary housing facilities, water- reticulation, sanitation, school and clinic facilities, shops, roads and other services had been provided and made available (Natal Mercury, 1982, p. 277). The community of Umbulwane was puzzled as to why they could not receive these services in Umbulwane particularly because they had been paying for them and asking for them for many years now (Platzky & Walker, 1985). Utrecht Located in Northern Natal and occupying what a local newspaper described as: “the top right- hand corner of a triangle comprising Dundee, Newcastle and Utrecht” (Worley & Rundgren, 2020) the town of Utrecht is one soaked with history. We won't delve too deeply into the town's history for this study. Instead, I will provide a brief overview of the events that led to the forced removal of black people from the area. In what was Northern Zululand at the time, Dutch Voortrekkers entered the region in 1837 and in 1838 they fought with the Zulu over territory in what is known as the “Battle of Blood River” or in Isizulu “Impi yase Ncome” (Ladz, 2017). Following the voortrekkers victory, the Boer Republic of Natal/Natalia was formed covering the regions between the Tugela and Umzimvubu rivers with Pietermaritzburg as the capital (Ladz, 2017). The British government in the Cape had never recognized the republic and in 1844 formerly annexed the territory, causing many of the Boers to move north over the Tugela River where they initially occupied the land between Klip River and Mzinyathi (Buffalo) River (Coleman & Garstang, 2014). The "Klip River Republic" lasted only a year before British authorities shut it down. This led the Voortrekkers to settle in an area between the Mzinyathi (Buffalo) and Ncome Rivers, which was undoubtedly Zulu territory (Coleman & Garstang, 2014). The Governor of the Transvaal at the time (1852), Andries Pretorius, objected to the Voortrekkers settlement in the area as it did not fall within the borders of the Transvaal and did not want to begin a conflict with the British (Potgieter, 1976). In 1854, upon gifting the Zulu King Mpande kaSenzangakhona 100 cattle in exchange for grazing land, the community along the Mzinyathi (Buffalo) River became the “Republic of Utrecht” (Potgieter, 1976). Named after the Dutch city in Holland where the Voortrekkers came from, the Republic of Utrecht was formerly recognized by the Transvaal Republic in 1855 and 1860 and became part of the Republic of Transvaal (Potgieter, 1976). In the latter half of the 19th century, the Utrecht sub- district was born, and inaugurated the subsequent land disputes between the Zulu kingdom and 39 the Transvaal settlers who had established farms on Zulu territory, and later asserted “boer ownership” in 1887 (Surplus People Project, 1983). Through this encroachment on Zulu territory, many of the African population living in these areas continued to “live on the white farms as labour tenants or rent-paying tenants” (Surplus People Project, 1983, p. 19). To house the families that were being removed from white areas, eMadadeni (1960) and Osizweni (1969) townships were established in the Newcastle area (Del Grande, 2009), one respondent of this study hails from the Osizweni township where she and her family were relocated upon removal from a Utrecht farm. In the present, Utrecht or now “Emadlangeni”, falls under the “Amajuba” District Municipal area as one of the three sub-districts established in 2001 (Del Grande, 2009). The municipal areas were established by the democratic government after 1994 with the “intention to create wall-to-wall local government for citizens as an attempt to overcome the inequities of the dual system of the past” (Del Grande, 2009, p. 36). Thuli Khanyile was relocated from Utrecht to Osizweni township in Newcastle with her family in 1970 and although these are two separate areas in Northern Natal the conditions in these relocation sites share the same deficiencies. Talking about the day of the removals, she said: They offloaded us, basically throwing our things out, and they weren't white, they were not the boers, they were black. They drove off to the next stop as soon as offloading was done, we were just meant to figure out how to fit all of us in that one-room house. And those houses are not like the houses here in Ezakheni, there was no concrete on the floor just a huge gaping hole and we were told to sleep there. We had to get wood first, we left our wood in Utrecht. The next day my mom and grandmother started to cover up the hole. And Newcastle was far, it's too far just to go buy one cement bag. There was a bus, you could get on in the morning and it took you to Newcastle (town), you would only be back in the late afternoon or early evening, around 4pm/5pm (Khanyile, 2022). Hobsland (Vulandondo) In the period between 1950 and mid 1960’s the rural community of Besters on the outskirts of the Ladysmith town was forcibly removed and relocated by the state to join another rural/farm community in Hobsland (Dlamini, 1999). The two communities share a common history of being forcibly removed from their land with the Besters community suffering that fate twice; both communities were subsequently forcibly relocated to Ezakheni township (Dlamini, 1999). The history of the former Hobsland community is a bleak one. Although there was much 40 resistance by residents, the record of their removal clearly shows the cruel ways those complicit in apartheid operated. Not only were they blatantly lied to by administrative workers, but the residents were also extorted and exploited despite legally owning the land and, as they further compromised and asked for the most basic concessions in exchange for leaving their homes. According to a Liberal Party booklet on “blackspots” published in the 1960s, the land on which the former residents of Besters lived was acquired in 1908 by a syndicate which purchased the land from a Mr. Daniel Bester and until 1963 was known as Kumalosville: In January, 1908, a Mr Daniel Bester sold 250 acres of land to an African syndicate whose trustees were Chief J.H. Kumalo and Messrs. T. Kumalo and E. Lutango. Kumalosville was born. In October 1963, over 55 years later, the demolition squads of the Nationalist Government's Department of Bantu Administration moved in, and Kumalosville died (Brown, 1974, p. 4). The first official visit to the Kumalosville residents was in 1952 when two officials from the ‘Bantu Administration Department’ announced to residents the government’s plan to purchase their farmland in exchange for a larger space elsewhere. Upon the official visit a delegation was elected to go view the Hobsland area and they returned with news of larger plots and were under the impression that was the deal they would be getting with the state (Brown, 1974). In September of 1954 however, it was announced that there would be no compensation whatsoever for the relocation and as expected, this was rejected by residents (Brown, 1974). In 1955 the Natives’ parliamentary representative at the time submitted the community’s’ conditions if they were to be moved. From the time of their submission in 1955 the residents received no response until another official visit in 1959 when they were presented with new terms: Compensation for land, improvements and what it called "inconvenience". A free 1/2-acre plot at Hobsland… The right to buy a further 1/2-acre at Hobsland for R110… It should be noted that, while in almost every respect Hobsland is a less desirable place to live in than Kumalosville, the Government offered R42 an acre as compensation at Kumalosville and asked R220 an acre at Hobsland! (Brown, 1974, p. 5). Under the new terms, compensation with land equal to what was being lost would only be given to men who owned 40 acres or more. Additionally, the relocation incentive promised six years prior, which included the possibility of receiving something bigger elsewhere, would no longer be provided (Brown, 1974). In 1960 and 1961 the residents received final notice from the state 41 and while they questioned the compensation proposed by the state, their land was expropriated. They were relocated to Hobsland in 1963 (Brown, 1974). Then, in 1972, just nine years later, records show that over 400 families were forcibly relocated from Hobsland to Ezakheni township, despite Kumalosville residents having been promised permanent residence upon being relocated to Hobsland in 1963 (Lincoln, 1977). The authorities justified the relocation to Ezakheni by claiming that the Hobsland farm area was needed by the town of Ladysmith for the construction of a dam, which would result in the landowners losing their freehold rights to the land (Msimang, 1979). Bonisile Mchunu, who participated in this study, was twenty-three years old in 1972 when she was forcibly removed with her family from the ‘Hobsland’ farming district and placed in Ezakheni C Section. She shares a similar story about the issues related to the dam in that area: First, they installed taps in the yards, I remember the first house to get a tap was kwa “Jakajaka”. After that they told us the dam we lived next to was going to overflow and burst and that we would drown and that was the reason they gave us for the removal. You know till today that dam has never burst it is still intact. They also said they were planning to build a township for the coloureds only but that didn’t happen. Instead, they allowed other people to come and build their houses there, some were coming from Roosboom (Mchunu, 2022). Roosboom “So that is why I say: You people who are still at your own places, stay there! Sit tight!” (Mngadi, 1981) The removal of people in Roosboom is one of the most documented cases within the literature of forced removals in the province of KwaZulu-Natal. In the early 1960s, the threat of the removals was fast circulating in the community, but it would only be a reality once the Ezakheni township was fully established (beginning in 1972). The first strategic move in which Roosboom stood (and still stands today) was implemented by the State through the use of the Local Health Commission. In 1960 the Commission expropriated the land by putting it under its control subsequently the houses in the area were counted and numbered in preparation for the removals. The process of the removals happened at an exceedingly fast rate in that a year after serving the community with the expropriation notices in 1975, the area had been completely evacuated by 1976 in the face of little resistance (Surplus People Project, 1983). 42 Former landowner and resident of Roosboom, Mr. Elliot Mngadi, in 1981 spoke at a meeting held in Ladysmith sharing his and other former residents’ sentiments on the relocation area: I am just pointing out a few things that are so bad there. I don’t know how to word it, how to tell you how dissatisfied with that area. And yet as it is we are stuck with it. That is why I would like to advise my friends who are still in their own ‘black spots’, not to leave those ‘black spots’ even if they come to shoot you! (Mngadi, 1981). The new township was not ready for the first waves of removal victims. The first batch of people who were relocated to the Ezakheni township were housed in temporary tin huts. Those interviewed for the Surplus People Project report had varying complaints about the conditions in the township, but a major complaint was the lack of adequate housing: “We would like to live in houses, not in these tins” (Surplus People Project, 1983, p. 334). The housing subsequently provided in the Ezakheni Township was the standard four or five-roomed house that stood on a small plot., Among the many disadvantages of the new location was the distance from the limited employment opportunities and other scarce amenities in urban Ladysmith. The cost of bus fares and the badly built roads added to the dissatisfaction of residents, which resulted in a sustained bus boycott. Eventually, in 1982, a well-tarred road was built between Ezakheni and Ladysmith. There was little employment to be found inside the township which forced many of its residents to seek work in the