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