Vestiges of racism haunt Kruger Park
T IS sad that a simple, and clearly explained, strategic business decision to build new tourists' facilities in Kruger National Park has been turned into a bizarre racial mudslinging game.
History is quick to point out that no debate, of whatever nature, on Kruger Park has ever been without racial overtones.
I have read with interest and sheer disbelief at the criticisms hurled at SANParks for daring "to think outside the box" following their decision to build two four-star hotel-type lodges at Kruger National Park.
I am staggered, but not at all surprised, by my ex-colleague at SANParks, Salmon Joubert's continuous attempt to "rule from the grave". Since his unceremonious departure from Kruger Park, which he used to call "my park" (in Afrikaans), Joubert's behaviour and comments have invariably insinuated that no park director has ever been good enough to administer Kruger Park.
All his successors - Harold Braack, David Mabunda, Bandile Mkhize and now Abe Sibiya - have been targets of his irrational contempt and criticism.
But whatever venom Joubert has spit at all these men, they have majestically moved on to prove him wrong through their unquestionable qualifications for the job, passion for nature and their consistent success in their management of the park.
Joubert is yet to explain to us all just what is wrong in building facilities in Kruger Park, to cater for various markets, especially overseas tourists, who prefer hotel-type accommodation they are used to in their countries.
I am equally at a loss how the lodge, built at almost the same roof height as the existing rondavels in the camps, will interfere with the biodiversity and overall environmental management of the park.
Besides what Joubert and his critical alliances say and do, the truth is that Kruger Park has always been a major subject of racism and no attempt should be made to deny this historical fact.
For at least six decades, Kruger Park was the symbol of white domination and black exclusion.
This has been the experience of the people living on the borders of Kruger National Park and black South Africans in general. Black South Africans were never allowed to go into the park except as labour to the exclusively white management.
The few blacks who eventually managed to make it into the national park - diplomats of neighbouring countries and the apartheid-created black homelands - were only accommodated in what today should be correctly named "shame" camps.
These were poorly fenced enclaves that were kept apart from the other main camps. That none of these black tourists was devoured by predators remains a mystery.
Some blacks who truly enjoyed going to these parks, despite the humiliation and degradation visited upon them, would go as far as to appropriate white surnames for the purposes of making a reservation, which would lead to great discomfort for park management and the possible embarrassment of being turned away for the nature lover.
Another undeniable piece of history is that of one of the key by-products of the apartheid system, the systematic and government-sponsored impoverishment of blacks. This exclusion from economic activity is what led the new democratic government to introduce key policies like black economic empowerment and employment equity.
Though heralded as having generally failed, these policies have fortunately created hubs of opportunities for black people as well as encouraged the emergence of the black middle class.
These are people who are now ready with their expendable cash to go on holiday within or outside of the country.
The systematic exclusion of blacks from the beautiful landscapes of South Africa and economic activity meant that black South Africans developed different patterns of holidaying to those of their fellow white citizens. The favourite holiday pastime for most blacks (to this day) is to either visit beaches during holiday times or go to visit relatives in rural farm community villages.
For those who can afford overseas holidays and luxury hotels, the popular beach spots are most convenient and preferred.
Whereas white South Africans had got used to taking their children to national parks and nature reserves for holidays exhorting the ideals of "communing with nature", blacks were already communing with nature in their villages.
The ideal nature holiday for an average white nature lover is not an ideal holiday for your average black nature lover.
Something that one would often hear being mentioned flippantly, but which holds very true when we look at this issue, is that for your average black South African, camping or sleeping in a sparsely decorated thatched rondavel or a tented chalet does not hold the same allure because it just spells poverty.
Your average black South African does not find anything to be excited about in such accommodation facilities.
After all, most of them were forced to live in such surroundings during the apartheid days.
To these days, others are still confined to such. However, this should never be read to mean that this person finds no excitement in the beauty of nature.
This is someone who gets as much thrill from seeing the big five as being told about the trees, grass, plants and landscape as much as anyone else.
But these are people who would very much like to retire to a comfortable bed at the end of the day.
Less than 10 years ago, black visitors to South Africa's national parks constituted less than 10percent of the park visitors, despite the black population comprising at least 75 to 80percent of the overall South African population.
The numbers have increased substantially since.
This was obviously an important product of the apartheid system and a serious indictment on our government. I fail to understand what could be such a bad thing when Kruger Park decided to rise to the challenge of meeting the needs of the average local and overseas visitors, by providing accommodation slightly different and more upmarket, as preferred by some visitors.
It is quite clear though that this debate is not necessarily about the hotel itself or the over-exhausted cries of loss of biodiversity because the reassurances from SANParks have been convincing enough.
The real crux of the debate is about loss of "ownership" to something that in actual fact is owned by no particular person.
There are families that have been going to Kruger National Park for many decades.
These are some of the people who are comfortable in the way things were. They are not about to embrace any changes to what they know, and are used to since time immemorial.
They are equally uncomfortable at the introduction of a predominantly black management at Kruger Park and other national parks.
- Shiburi is a journalist, a trustee at Ian Player's Wilderness Foundation and former public relations and communications manager at SANParks
bunnyhugger
I cannot believe that after 17 years of rule and freedom in this country that we still have this racialistic issue. It is absolutely appalling. Every time someone goes against an idea that is put forward, or disagrees with an issue, as long as the person is anything other than black, he or she is labeled as a "Racist". This is a pathetic argument and a crutch as far as I am concerned.Black people say they cannot be racists, but everyone else is? Come on people, when are you going to let go of your stupid crtuches and the past and move on? Racism is racism. You cannot use it to suit yourselves by claiming it only works one way.
By the way, the whole hotel development in Kruger national park is a hot debate. Anyone opposed to this, please feel free to contact me and sign a petition I have going to block this.
Report Abuse
BushFairy
While this is a very intriguing article, with very interesting historical facts, there are two things that REALLY irritated and infuriated me:1) "I am equally at a loss how the lodge, built at almost the same roof height as the existing rondavels in the camps, will interfere with the biodiversity and overall environmental management of the park."
- if an author does not see how how building a new lodge (whether a hotel, standard camp or tented camp) interferes with biodiversity and management of a park, especially when built on a river like the Crocodile River then they should not be reporting on such issues. It is a disgrace that someone with a parks background can make such a ridiculous comment.
- the height of a lodge has very little to do with its impact on the environment, um, what about water use, removal of natural vegetation, waste management, height....really....??
2) The use of "us" and "them" and stating peoples opinions without a study! How do you know that the majority of people want A rather than B if no one has done a comprehensive study to find out?? An example of a them/us, statement with no backing: "They are equally uncomfortable at the introduction of a predominantly black management at Kruger Park and other national parks."
- so all families who have been going to KNP for years and are opposed to more development have racially motivated opinions?? And it has nothing to do with the environmental impacts but the race of the people making the decisions?? What a pathetic assumption!
I am a scientist so when it comes to large scale decision making, like development in a national park, one of our countries most important conservation areas, I want facts. If you have done a PLA study with the surrounding community and the results indicate that they feel that the reason that they do not visit KNP is because the current lodges are too rustic, then so be it. If you have done a study on the wants and needs of international visitors and the results indicate that there is a significant gap in the market which warrents an "inbetween style" lodge, fine! If the environmental impact assessment, done by a independent source, indicates that there will not be a significant impact on a) water quantity, b) water quality, c) endagered or threatened species (like the Pel's Fishing Owl), d) biodiversity due to new roads and more vehicles on these roads, then fine, build the new camp. But don't start making ridiculous statements if you don't have the figures to back them up, these kinds of assumptions are turning something which should be a clean cut scientific and management decision into a nasty and unnecessary racial disaster!
Report Abuse
bunnyhugger
It also annoys me intensely that the developments planned for Kruger park are made to sound as benign as drinking a glass of purified water while the environmental impact is going to be far worse than this. The south of the reserve (National Park) is already over crowded and placing another 1500 people in the reserve is going to aggravate this situation dramatically. Consider that there will also be additonal staff members needed to be ferried to and from work in transport opperated by drivers who pay scant regard for the rules of any road, let alone the speed limits imposed by SANPARKS which in my opinion are failing dismally to control. And then there are the additional deliver vehicles which will need to bring in all the additional food necessary to feed the additonal staff and guests.And if this is not enough, there are existing hotels in the surrounding towns that are struggling to survive and will most likely not survive the additional competition or that the hotels being built may suffer the same fate. So the tax payers money may very well be wasted on a plan that might after all, turn to complete disaster. Surely we that tax paying public have a right to fight against this since there is a great chance that our tax will be wasted.
Personally, I think the whole idea is a monumental mistake. If the hotels bring in the planned numbers of "black diamonds" (I believe was the term used to describe the clientelle to be attracted) it will be disasterous for the wildlife and the increased carbon footprint spells serious danger to the animals that are the reason why people from all over the world flock to KNP to come and see. Not to mention the increased road kill that will result from the increased traffic.
And if they fail, then the tax payers will have lost millions of their hard earned money. This outcome is highly desired from a conservation perspective in my opinion.
Why spend all this money when existing infrastructures are not being maitained? Why spend all this when service delivery had dropped to levels that I find pathetic and finally, what is being done to address some of the staffing issues where staff members are downright rude and clearly uninterested in their jobs, far less conservation?
Personally I think that someone is suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Report Abuse
ndzamela
I am really confused by this whole thing.This is being written as though it is just a new camp being built by Sanparks to supplement the "poverty-style" camps already in the park. But it is not. It is a Radisson Blu hotel.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there are already 9 luxury lodges inside the Kruger National Park (Imbali Safari Lodges, Jock Safari Lodge, Lukimbi Safari Lodge, Rhino Walking Safaris, Shishangeni Private Lodge, Singita Lebombo Private Game Lodge, Tinga Private Game Lodge, Pafuri Camp) offering anything BUT bare rondawels. Take a look at the websites of these private concession lodges and tell me that even the most pampered primadonna (black or white, foreign or local) would not be comfortable here.
So what is this Radsisson Blu hotel then? It is obviously NOT a Sanparks-operated camp (which would see 100% of the profits paid directly to Sanparks). Is it another private lodge like the above? If so, the argument that the park needs it because all other accommodation is too basic falls flat.
Also, am I right in thinking that the chairman of Sanparks, Kuseni Dlamini, is a director of Mvelaphanda Group, which is part owned by Mvelaphanda Holdings. For those who dont know, Mvelaphanda Holdings manages all of Rezidor's hotels in South Africa. Big deal, you say? Rezidor (the massive Swiss hotel group) are the developers of this new hotel!
I am just wondering whether pulling out the racism card may well be a convenient smokescreen for something a lot more shady? After all, while we all sit here arguing about which race can hate the other more, the natural heritage that belongs to every citizen of South Africa is being pimped out to the highest bidder.
Just sayin'.
Report Abuse
Juju~of~the~bushveld
Hey, these bloody agents are eating our biodiversity!!I say, let’s nationalize these things they call national parks!!
Report Abuse
Richprins
I really enjoyed working with Fanyana at Parks Board HQ, in a harmonious multiracial setup. Nobody mentions he left the "cause" there to make money as a soccer administrator, which was a great disappointment to us.Please provide PROOF as to why those opposed to overcrowding and overdevelopment in Kruger Park are racist?
Is that not slander???
Disappointed again.
Report Abuse
majura
I have followed with interest news on construction of a hotel in Kruger Park. To date I, as a non-South African, have distanced myself from the inevitable debate which I have followed as much as possible on the SanParks forums. However I cannot, in good conscience, ignore some of the remarks in this article.The statement "cater for.........ocerseas tourists, who prefer hotel-type accommodation they are used to in their countries" is a ridiculous inaccuracy. Although in my senior years I have travelled widely since retirement, met and conversed with thousands of tourists. Not one preferred hotel style accommodation. In fact most abhorred the idea, preferring instead to travel and be accommodated in basic accommodation where they can meet friendly, like-minded travellers.
I am appalled by the vitriolic attack on those who oppose the development, To accuse oppononents of racism is so wrong and you inevitably attack many who work to overcome the decades of oppression. Dare I say "Apartheid, horrific as it was, has gone. History is history and should remain as such. Get over it and move on!" You do not glean any sympathy by pulling the race card whenever it suits.
Report Abuse
johnUK
As an international visitor, 8 times to SA and 3 times to Kruger NP I am devastated that a decision to build HOTELS in such a beautiful piece of herritage has been taken.I hoped to believe that Kruger was for the animals and that humans, whatever colour, all came second to preserving this wilderness.
As for a specific type of person wanting HOTEL style accomodation when they goto the beach, so do I, when I goto the beach, as I also wouldnt want to stay in a small hut or camp in the middle of Cape Town. Just because people stay in types of accomodation in one place doesnt make it the right accomodation somewhere else.
I hope someone puts an end to this development before it is too late and a place of beauty is changed for the worse. If people want to be in the wilderness they should be prepared to make a few sacrifices.
You should be embarressed and ashamed that the race card has been raised please preserve your national treasure.
Report Abuse
mstrathmore
Are you serious?Are you basing your argument for a construction as significant as this on the fact that you feel that Black people prefer luxury accommodation because the rondavels remind them of their "apartheid" homes?
I'm dumbstruck that you do not see the reverse racism and condescension towards your own people in your comments!
I travel to the park several times a year. It is not my park; it is South Africa's park, and a jewel for all that visit irrespective of race, or country of origin. The single, unifying thing about the park is a deep respect for nature and an appreciation for our abundant natural resource gives us as a country. That appreciation is generally displayed by most people I meet in the park, irrespective of their race, and generally irrespective of their country of origin.
The real issue here is not race; the real issue is protecting a national asset that belongs to all of us, and not allowing it to be exploited beyond its capacity. If a hotel is a necessity, then the trade-off should be an addition to the landmass of the park - the park should grow its boundaries by a carrying capacity equivalent to the impact of the hotel.
Get over yourself, not everything is racist: sleep in a rondavel like the rest of us.
Mark Strathmore
Report Abuse
Musio
This is an environmental issue, not a race issue. The author is clearly obsessed with racialising every debate, and has therefore failed in any attempt at journalistic integrity.I wish readers could "report abuse" on the article as well as on the comments people leave, for this surely qualifies: abuse to those who oppose the (clearly unnecessary) Radisson Blu scheme by labeling them as racists for their environmental concern, abuse of journalistic principles (and I don't even mention the incredibly weak arguments used beyond the race card), and just plain common racism in the 'them and us' tone of the piece.
Shockingly bad journalism.
Report Abuse