The population of Gecelo’s Xhalanga and Stokwe’s part of Southeyville was from the outset not homogenous. As will be seen below, the population was divided between `red’ and `school’ people. A major factor was that in order to boost their stature, the chiefs allowed and invited a considerable number of amaMfengu to occupy their land (Theal 1919: 144). The reason for this was that when these chiefs took up the offer to move to the vacant piece of land that became Emigrant Thembuland, they left behind a substantial number of members of their clans. Their areas in Emigrant Thembuland were thus thinly populated. I’ll come back to this point.
A distinguishing aspect of amaMfengu is that they were, by the first half of the nineteenth century, without chiefs. By 1835, some amaMfengu lived among amaGcaleka east of the Kei River. Missionaries claimed that amaMfengu in these areas were being ill-treated (Saunders 1978: 2). In May 1835, some 17 000 amaMfengu followed Rev. John Ayliff across the Kei and eventually settled in the Ngqushwa (Peddie) area under colonial governance. This was, as Saunders noted, the beginning of the governing of Africans as colonial subjects (ibid.: 2). However, it is clear from the case of Xhalanga that by 1865, when Emigrant Thembuland was established, amaMfengu were scattered in various parts of Cape (see below).
Apart from not owing allegiance to chiefs, amaMfengu were generally regarded as ‘school’ people (variously labeled in the indigenous language,
isiXhosa, abantu besikolo /amakhumsha/ izifundiswa /amagqobhoka). This
social group was a product of colonial influence. In general, Africans in the rural areas were, by the mid-nineteenth century divided mainly between ‘school’ people on the one hand, and the ‘red’ people (amaqaba), on the other hand.9 AmaXhosa and abaThembu were often identified with the ‘red’ people
and chiefly subjects. Missionaries were instrumental in the creation of these divisions. The division hinged on the partial acceptance by the ‘school’ people and rejection by the ‘red’ people of some Western influences and values. I emphasise ‘partial’ for the simple reason that ‘school’ people accepted some Western values and practices, in particular, Western education, Christianity and the Western style of dressing (Mayer 1980; 1974). At the same time, although the ‘red’ people resisted Western influence, they could not do so entirely. As Theal has noted, some “adopted the use of iron pots, of blankets, or even the
9
Amaqaba (plural) was a derogatory term used by the ‘school’ people and referred to the red ochre ‘red’ people applied to their clothing. ‘Red’ people, in turn, used the derogatory termamaqgobhoka when referring to ‘school’ people to suggest that the latter ‘opened a hole’ to let Whites in (see Mayer 1980: 8).
clothing of the white people, and frequently of ploughs”. With a typical colonial mentality, Theal (1919: 27) added: “They all desired to have guns, but every savage does that”.
The moral of the above is that while these divisions cannot be denied, it needs to be pointed out that they should be understood in their historical contexts and be seen as dynamic rather than static and frozen. For instance, children born of ‘red’ parents often ended up becoming ‘school’ people as the influence of formal education and urbanization increased. Furthermore, these divisions were nuanced, and there was no rigid wall between them. Thus, while accepting some Western influences, ‘school’ people held on to some of their customs, such as the initiation ceremony of boys coming of age. Chiefs, on the other hand, imbibed some of the Western values, although they did not encour- age their subjects to follow suit. According to Stanford, “chiefs wore European dress but most of their followers had blankets daubed as usual with red orchre” (Macquarrie 1958: 21). This tension between Western and African values from the time of colonial contact has been pervasive and the subject of many novels and dramas by African writers, and is best captured in the classic Ingqumbo yeminyanya (The Wrath of the Ancestors) by A.C. Jordan (1974). It is also aptly captured by Jordan’s wife, Phyllis Ntantala, in her autobiography, A Life’s Mosaic:10
For how can one explain and understand Granny Matthews, wife of Professor Z.K. Matthews, so English and yet so African? Of the women I know, there are none as African and aware of their great African heritage as she is. And yet, on the surface, she is so English. Or how can one understand my husband A.C (Jordan), peasant in outlook, one who remained suspicious of city ways to the end of his life, and yet, as a Classical and European scholar of literature, history and music, one who could field with the best? (Ntantala 1992: ix)11
Having said this, I argue in this book that these divisions were not merely the figment of the imagination of colonialists. As Mayer (1980; 1974) has correctly observed, Africans categorized themselves as ‘school’ and ‘red’ people (see also Beinart 1991: 21). Not only that, colonialists ingrained in the minds of the majority of the school people that African values and practices at the time of colonial intrusion were backward and inferior to Western values. We shall see in later chapters how these divisions and prejudices persisted in Xhalanga, and how the wily chief K.D. Matanzima exploited them when Tribal Authorities were introduced in the apartheid era.
10
Phyllis Ntantala is also the mother of Pallo Jordan, the ANC activist, Member of Parliament and intellectual.
11
The division between ‘school’ and ‘red’ people already existed amongst amaGcina when they occupied Xhalanga.12 The category of ‘school people’ was
further bolstered by the arrival of amaMfengu in Xhalanga.13 Gecelo pointed out
in his testimony to the Thembuland Commission that the first Mfengu in Xhalanga, Jonas Umtonjeni14 arrived around 1872, about seven years after
abaThembu settled in Xhalanga.15 Others followed. They came, according to
Gecelo from different places such as Orange River, Burn’s Hill and ‘the colony’. AmaMfengu did not come with a chief, as they, by this time, did not recognize any chief(s). In other words, by 1872, the population of Xhalanga divided, not only along social lines, between the ‘school’ and ‘red’ people, but also along ethnic lines, between amaGcina and amaMfengu. There seems, how- ever, to have been, by the late 1870s, an alliance amongst the ‘school’ people of both ethnic groups. Magistrate Cumming described these “few civilized na- tives” thus:
These men had grown up under the care of the late Mr Warner, and are pleasing examples of what the native may become under judicious training. … They were located on farms, and the right of occupation was secured to them so long as they remained in the country. … There is a vast difference between the condition of these native farmers, and that of the people who were left unreservedly under the control of the chiefs. Being virtually independent of the chiefs, and freed by their early training from the trammels which custom and tradition have imposed on other natives, they have advanced in wealth and material prosperity, and as regards their civilization, it admits of being represented as consisting in something more than the possession of a plough and a suit of European clothes … they are loyal in the true sense of the term; they are better clothed, better fed, and better housed, than any of the surrounding natives.16
12
See the testimony of Gecelo’s councilor, Jim, to the Thembuland Commission on 10 November 1882 regarding the “school people” among abaThembu (G. 66 – ‘83: 30). See also Cumming’s annual report dated 31 December 1878.
13
According to Mafeje (1963: 41), “destitute, famine-stricken, and helpless (ama- Mfengu) came to the Southern tribes with their never forgotten cry of ‘Siya mfenguza’ – ‘We are refugees or fugitives’. Hence the term ‘amaMfengu’”. Accord- ing to Peires (1981: 88), ukumfenguza means “to wander about seeking service”. Peires has reminded us that, contrary to the widely-held view, amaMfengu were initially well received by amaXhosa, and that it is only later that there were tensions between the two groups (ibid.: 88-89).
14
It is possible that the proper name is Thonjeni.
15
In the testimony, Gecelo is recorded as having said: “The first one came in ten years ago”. The date of the testimony was 9 November 1882. See G. 66 – ‘83: 22.
16
Although Cumming’s pre-occupation was to draw a contrast between the few ‘civilized natives’ and the majority ‘red’ people, the above quotation intro- duces the notion of class differentiation in Xhalanga. In this context, class refers to a distinction between those who had access to land with some form of legal document and those who did not. The ‘school’ people, as Cummings pointed out, were granted farms, with “the right of occupation … secured to them so long as they remained in the country”, while the bulk of the ‘red’ people were not granted any farms. The class division coincided with the division between ‘school’ and ‘red’ people, with the class of landholders largely drawn from the school people. It is these ‘native farmers’, amongst others, that Colin Bundy
(1988: 112-3) comments on in his seminal work, The Rise and Fall of the
Peasantry in South Africa. Bundy was particularly commenting about the remarkable manner they adapted to new challenges presented by colonial market conditions and how they transformed themselves into progressive peasants who competed favourably with white farmers. It is worth noting that amaGcina, presumably the ‘red’ amaGcina, resented the granting of land to amaMfengu, but their chief, Gecelo, continued to give land to amaMfengu.17
Wagenaar (1988: 168) has argued that the fact that Gecelo was a regent must have made him feel insecure, especially as there were occasional rumours that the heir, Mpangela, would move to Emigrant Thembuland and unseat him. By bringing amaMfengu with him, Gecelo, according to Wagenaar, wanted to strengthen his position. A close reading of the record of the Thembu Commission suggests that there is another explanation. According to Levey, amaMfengu who were given land “paid the chiefs in cattle or money”, which, according to him, Gecelo “appropriated mostly to himself in cases of that kind.18
It would appear that the chief instruments that colonialists used to transform Africans in most of the Eastern Cape, the church and western education (Ntantala 1992), had not, certainly in the eyes of Cumming, made a palpable impact in Xhalanga by 1878. According to Cumming, Christianity and educa- tion had not made much progress in the area, “chiefly because the agencies in operation (were) quite inadequate to the requirements of the people.19 He contin-
ued:
In the whole district there is not a single resident Missionary. There are two out- stations in charge of native Evangelists. The one is connected with the Wesleyan Mission Station at Cofimvaba, and is periodically visited by the Rev. Mr. Warner; while the other belongs to St. Marks. On the latter there is a small school conducted by a woman. 17 G. 66 – ‘83: 23-30. 18 G. 66 – ‘83: 52. 19 G. 33 – 1879: 92.
He concluded by pointing out that he hoped “to have additional schools estab- lished”.20 The fact that there were no schools and churches in the area should
not be surprising, given that Cumming arrived about 13 years after the estab- lishment of Xhalanga. This would change with time. By 1903, Resident Magis- trate Bell reported that “Native Schools in the town” did not only exist, but were “well attended and well managed”, too.21
Given that there were no schools and churches, a question may justifiably be asked about the origins of ‘school’ people in Xhalanga. To answer this question, it would be important to recall that at the time of the establishment of Xhalanga in 1865, amaMfengu had already accepted Western education and religion. Consequently, those that moved to Xhalanga were already ‘school’ people. Magistrate Cumming’s observation that the people of Xhalanga were not homogeneous and that some, in particular amaMfengu, were disapproving of the decisions of the chiefs, is a clear testament to the Western influence that amaMfengu brought with them. According to Cumming, amaMfengu and abaThembu were “beginning to avail themselves of their right of appeal from the decisions of the chiefs”. He noted that it was “seldom a Gcina appeal(led). The appellants generally prove(d) to be either Fingoes or Tembus who (were) not of Gcina extraction”.22 With time, the number of amaMfengu grew. When
Levey gave evidence to the Thembuland Commission on 11 November 1882, he estimated that “half the population are Fingoes”.23 Similar divisions occurred
in the area of Stokwe. By 1880, the people in Stokwe’s area were divided between the ‘school people’ and the so-called ‘red kaffirs’. The ‘school’ people, as was the case with their counterparts in Gecelo’s territory, were undermining the authority of Stokwe. They made such an impact that Stokwe had threatened to drive them away as a result of their refusal to refer disputes to him as chief of the area (Wagenaar 1988: 178).