A Peasantry Under Siege: A Case Study of the Farms Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein¶
A. Morris (1987). A Peasantry Under Siege: A Case Study of the Farms Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein. University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop, 'The Making of Class', 9-14 February 1987. University of the Witwatersrand History Workshop.
| Type | conference paper |
| Scope | Wider apartheid literature |
| Method | mixed |
| Period studied | 1922–1986 |
| Regions | Transvaal (Mathajana/Mdutjana district, north of Johannesburg), Bophuthatswana, KwaNdebele, Rust de Winter |
| Themes | agriculture land, bantustans removals influx, resistance social movements, politics ideology elections |
| Citation key | morris1987 |
Argument¶
The paper is a preliminary case study of two adjoining farms bought collectively by North Sotho and Ndebele families, where a black peasantry has survived. It argues that the ethnic hostility between the farm residents and the Bakgatla ba Mocha is not irrational. It has a material base in the 1920s and 1940s purchases, when a Tswana chief (Moepi) signed the title deeds as nominee and his successors then claimed ownership. The paper claims the state uses that claim, together with a distorted version of the farms' history, to legitimate incorporating the farms into Bophuthatswana and possibly removing the residents to Rust de Winter. The argument is built from residents' oral accounts and community-state correspondence.
Evidence and method¶
Interviews with residents (notably Sam Kekana's account of the 1922-23 purchase), correspondence between the community, TRAC, the Bantu Affairs Commissioner and Deputy Minister Ben Wilkens (1977-1986), a 1977 memorandum of grievances, title deeds (T 10109/1929 and T 33905/1948), and newspaper reports (The Star, Business Day, 1985-86).
Place in the debates¶
- Ethnicity as primordial/irrational vs materially grounded and state-manipulated. Holds that ethnic hostility has a strong material base and is fuelled by racist state policy and corrupt chiefs. It argues the state distorts history to legitimate incorporation into a homeland.
- Survival of an African peasantry under apartheid and capitalist agriculture (see Agrarian transition to capitalism and the fate of the African peasantry). Presents the two farms as one of the few places where a black peasantry has survived, with substantial self-built infrastructure and largely subsistence production. The claim is based on local sources and is preliminary.
Findings¶
-
The farms are presented as a rare surviving black peasantry. (p. 2)
It is one of the few areas in South Africa where a black peasantry has been able to survive, to an extent, the onslaught of the Apartheid system and capitalist agriculture.
-
The community is large, with small landholdings. (p. 2)
They have a population of approximately 15 000.
-
Landholdings are small, with about 2 000 peasants on the farms. (p. 2)
At present, according to local sources, there are up to 2 000 peasants on the 2 farms, the average farm size is 4 morgen.
-
The paper's thesis is that the ethnic conflict has a material basis created by state policy and chiefs. (p. 3)
ethnic hostility in the area is not irrational but has a strong material base in that it has been fuelled significantly by racist state policies and corrupt chiefs both past and present.
-
The farm was bought collectively by the residents, who needed a chief to sign for the purchase, and a neighbouring Tswana chief was chosen. (p. 4)
A neighbouring Tswana chief, Chief Robert Moepi, of the Bakgatla ba Mocha tribe was chosen by both my father and Mr Schuurman to be the chief to sign.
-
The Bakgatla ba Mocha contributed nothing to the purchase, yet the title deed named them as beneficiaries. (p. 4)
Chief Moepi and his people never paid a penny towards the purchase of Bloedfontein.
-
The title deed's trust wording later underpinned Tswana claims to the land. (p. 4)
stated that the land was held in trust for the Bakgatla ba Mocha people under the leadership of Chief Robert Moepi.
-
The state excluded the residents from the incorporation and removal negotiations. (p. 8)
The state had conducted all its negotiations with the Bophuthatswana and Kwandebele administrations and totally ignored the Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein residents.
-
The community rejected removal to Rust de Winter and demanded consultation. (p. 9)
The tribe is not prepared to move to Rust der Winter area because they love their farms and they are happy.
-
The state publicly retracted the removal threat after publicity but kept the incorporation. (p. 9)
reports that people are to be moved "are devoid of all truth".
Evidence ledger¶
Sources used¶
| Source | Kind | Period | How used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interviews with Bloedfontein/Geweerfontein residents (incl. Sam Madimetja Kekana testimony, original purchaser's account of Geweerfontein, nursing sister, local resident) | interviews oral history | 1980s interviews recalling 1922-1948 events | Establishes the account of how Bloedfontein and Geweerfontein were purchased, the role of Chief Moepi, and present conditions on the farms. |
| Deed of Transfer No T 10109/1929 (Bloedfontein) | state archives | 1929 | Documents final payment of the purchase price and that title was held in trust for the Bakgatla ba Mocha under Chief Robert Moepi. |
| Deed of Transfer No T 33905/1948 (Geweerfontein) | state archives | 1948 (purchase 1947) | Documents the size, price and title of Geweerfontein, signed by a Moepi. |
| Memorandum of grievances at meeting of 24.5.77 between Bakgatla Ba Mocha and Bloedfontein Community | union or movement records | 1977 | Shows community grievances against the Bakgatla ba Mocha over title, headmen, school subsidies and citizenship. |
| Correspondence from Bloedfontein Senotlelo community to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner, Mathajana, 17 November 1977 | state archives | 1977 | Evidences complaints about the Bakgatla ba Mocha collecting shop rentals. |
| Correspondence from Bloedfontein Community Authority to Black Sash (TRAC), 18 June 1985, and to TRAC, 23 September | union or movement records | 1985 | Quoted to show residents' reaction to Kwandebele administration and fear of Tswana rule and bloodshed. |
| Correspondence between the Bloedfontein community/lawyer and Deputy Minister Ben Wilkens, Oct 1985-Nov 1986 | commission or official report | 1 Oct 1985 - 28 Nov 1986 | Shows the state's decision to incorporate the farms into Bophuthatswana, its reliance on the Moepi claim, and its refusal to consult residents. |
| Telex from Mr Ben Wilkens to the Star and Business Day, 18 September 1986 | newspapers periodicals | 1986 | Shows the state retracting the removal threat while confirming incorporation on the basis of Moepi's claim. |
| The Star, 25 September 1985/1986 article (Chris Heunis statement), and 20 September 1986 | newspapers periodicals | September 1985/1986 | First notice to the community of the planned removal; Heunis quoted as claiming residents had agreed to co-operate; also used for the clinic and agriculture quotations. |
| Business Day, 26 September 1985 | newspapers periodicals | 1985 | Reports Wilkens saying the removal would affect only a few dozen families, which the author uses as evidence of state misinformation. |
| Borders of Particular States Extension Amendment Bill (passed 16 September 1986) and September 1985 consolidation plans | legislation gazette | 1985-1986 | Provides the legal-policy context for the incorporation of the farms into Bophuthatswana. |
New data¶
Interview and correspondence material collected by TRAC/the author on two adjoining farms (population approx. 15 000); no systematic dataset.
Inference¶
Quantification: None.
Single-community case study based on oral testimony, community and state correspondence, deeds and press reports; narrative reconstruction linking the purchase history to current ethnic hostility and state policy.
Key claims¶
| Claim | Basis | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| The way Bloedfontein was purchased, with Chief Moepi signing as nominee and title being held in trust for the Bakgatla ba Mocha, laid the basis for ethnic hostility. (p. 3) | Kekana's oral account, the 1929 and 1948 deeds and the 1977 memorandum. | Partial data |
| The state used the Moepis' signature on the title deeds to legitimate Bophuthatswana's administration and incorporation of the farms, bypassing residents' representatives. (p. 8) | Wilkens correspondence and telex, press reports and the community's replies. | Partial data |
| The Bakgatla ba Mocha and their headmen exploited the title claim, collecting money from new arrivals, shop rentals and school subsidies. (p. 5) | Community memorandum (1977) and a letter to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner; one-sided community assertions. | Illustrative or anecdotal |
| The state misinformed the public about the consultation and the scale of the removal, then retracted the removal threat after publicity. (p. 8) | Star and Business Day articles, and Wilkens's letters and telex. | Partial data |
| The farms are a surviving black peasantry with substantial self-built infrastructure and largely subsistence production. (p. 2) | Residents' statements and local sources; no survey data. | Illustrative or anecdotal |
| Community resistance to the Bakgatla ba Mocha grew from the 1970s with a new headman and youth politicisation. (p. 7) | Inferred from interviews, with hedged language. | Asserted |
The author's caveats¶
States that the paper is based mainly on interviews and correspondence and "must be viewed as a preliminary study"; population and peasant numbers are local estimates ("up to 2 000 peasants", "approximately 15 000").
Gaps in the evidence¶
The account depends on residents' oral testimony and partisan correspondence, with no testimony from the Moepi/Bakgatla side or independent verification. Missing are the deeds' full text, magistrate and Native Affairs Department files on the 1920s purchase and Moepi's 1925 conviction, and any household survey of production and land use. Many of these records existed then in the Deeds Office and the Transvaal archives and could be consulted now.
Replicability: Data poorly documented.