Reading Notes: Mavhunga, "Firearms Diffusion..."
Abstract: Core idea of this paper is that firearms diffusion into and through the Gonarezhou area of South Eastern Zimbabwe has been going on since 1500, and seeks to describe the "deep involvement of African users of firearms in the diffusion process" despite "essentially negative impact." (201)
This area is currently part of a ginormous wildlife preserve, and "over the last two centuries has experienced sustained poaching and civil war." (202)
Migration is different from radiation; can involve individuals, groups, or minorities; Mavhunga seems to be critiquing this definition (Scoville's) on the grounds that European colonizers functioned as individuals, groups, and minorities at different times, and that Scoville's analysis of "intellect" is incorrect.
Headrick's analysis is useful but ignores "the roles that Africans gave to firearms in contexts internal to their circumstances-ivory hunting, slave raiding, heritage, internal security, and diplomacy." (204) He's going to look at the firearms as imported rather than exported, zoom in on a smaller area, and get a different angle from which to view the phenomenon. War as "an effective medium through which technology is diffused." (205)
Potentially useful in some other angle and blockquoting:
"This paper focuses on the trans-Limpopo region, an arid, low-lying (Lowveld) wilderness prone to flooding. Being rich in wildlife, a national park and resultant ecotourism utilities such as hotels, lodges, game trails, and viewing platforms have been accepted as the best developmental model for the region. One result has been the obliteration of the region’s vibrant and varied human history. Today this area is called Gonarezhou (a place of elephants), and whereas the ancestors of the people here had named this place in recognition of the utility of wildlife to them, colonial- ism transformed it to mean a primarily wildlife landscape exclusive of peo- ple (Mavhunga, 2002b, pp. 540-1; Anti-Slavery Reporter, February 1881, p. 19)" (205-6)
Firearms as a superior technology for wildlife exploitation.
Diffusion through marketplaces, colonizers sell to one group, group sells to other groups. Lack of governmental control of all regions meant that one government's merchants would sell you guns even if another's wouldn't; in addition, some merchants ignored regulations. Missionaries providing British firearms!
"Other than the obvious commercial value of enabling ivory hunting and slave raiding, firearms were items of heritage, societal prestige, and symbols of mas- culinity. They fed into patriarchy (Wagner, 1980, pp. 328-37)." (208) Gender! They were political and commercial and personal. Taking down the whole individual/group dichotomy.
"more efficient exploitation of ivory and slave exports" (209) Parallels between ivory trade and slave trade are interesting from a human/animal boundaries position, although even though this paper is combining them so far I'd be hesitant to do too much of that without way more research.
"a vi- cious circle emerged in which breech-loading rifles and muskets were both instruments with which to raid for slaves and ivory, and commodities of exchange to buy off powerful polities in the interior, which then raided for slaves on behalf of the Boers. At the same time, some of the male children captured were taken to the Zoutpansberg, trained, and sent back to hunt for ivory in return for their ultimate emancipation. These “apprentices,” as the Boers called them, became excellent marksmen who, through ivory hunting earned their freedom, returned to their societies, and became a distinct social class (Wagner, 1980, pp. 324-5). In another sense, too, these swart skuts (black shots) were agents of firearms proliferation as well as users. The freed swart skut was, therefore, an important conduit through which gun technology-as ideas and objects-spread from the Boers to African communities." (211) Wow. The Boers could just walk into a village, kill all the adults, and enslave all the children --- who then learned to shoot, took guns back with them, and taught the remaining villages how to defend against the Boers. _Wow._
The Venda not only served as a conduit for the physical guns, but also taught repair and how to make ammunition; indigenous knowledge about explosives from compost/dung was combined with the knowledge from the Europeans into making amunition.
"The extent of arms shipments fluctuated with developments in Europe; after the Crimean (1854-56), Austro-Prussian (1866), and Franco-Prussian (1870) wars, large numbers of firearms were offloaded onto the market, depressing prices and increasing African bargaining power." (214-5) Would not have thought of that but it makes perfect sense. I bet similar things happen today.
European powers were willing to give up guns but wanted to avoid giving up machine guns, rockets, and so on.
More on war as a mechanism for transfer: "In this way, the battleground emerges as a stage for tech- nology transfer, with the forced migration of the defeated a form of diffu- sion. A battle is a technological confrontation. It shows how-unlike in modern warfare in which prisoners of war surrender and their weapons are quartered-precolonial warfare was annihilistic. One went into battle to win or die; surrender meant death at the enemy’s hands. A battle was, therefore, both a theater for firearms to be used and a source of firearms. In battle, the defeated lost their weapons together with their lives-usual- ly there was no ambush, the columns fighting in massed formation either on flanks, on the frontage, or from deep in reserve. The winner took all, especially the weapons." (217)
Laws in late 1800s/early 1900s led to a "wild west" style frontier where those who didn't want to disarm went, a "no-man’s land in the southeastern Lowveld." (218) Forrestall in Chivi gave out weapons to "native detectives," " the first instance in which Africans were deliberately armed by the state to carry out official duties." (218) Disarmament came after a failed rebellion in 1896-7.
Page 222, radiation and diffusion as complementary, using example of how guns are manufactured in imitation
Page 224, use of guns for poaching as ecoterrorism? This is a really interesting argument. "consistent with my attempt to look at technological transfer from unorthodox dimensions, I believe the term can apply to human actions that hampered existing sustainable methods of resource utilization; in particular poaching. Human beings could not inflict this harm without technology. Hence the tools are just as important as the ideas behind actions"
Talking about "the camp" here, even though it's a different kind of camp, it is difficult not to think of Agamben. I wonder if that is intentional. "tive dynamics. The camp is a frontier where two technologies fuse together, not through the conventional legal channels, but through the under- ground, with the poacher’s hunting camp as a key analytical site. Deliber- ate forms of environmental terrorism are as abundant as accidental forms." (225) treatment of wild animals as bare life? Poisoning zebras to kill lions? Ugh. Page 226 is a goldmine for this kind of analysis.
This entry was originally posted at http://rax.dreamwidth.org/70927.html.
This area is currently part of a ginormous wildlife preserve, and "over the last two centuries has experienced sustained poaching and civil war." (202)
Migration is different from radiation; can involve individuals, groups, or minorities; Mavhunga seems to be critiquing this definition (Scoville's) on the grounds that European colonizers functioned as individuals, groups, and minorities at different times, and that Scoville's analysis of "intellect" is incorrect.
Headrick's analysis is useful but ignores "the roles that Africans gave to firearms in contexts internal to their circumstances-ivory hunting, slave raiding, heritage, internal security, and diplomacy." (204) He's going to look at the firearms as imported rather than exported, zoom in on a smaller area, and get a different angle from which to view the phenomenon. War as "an effective medium through which technology is diffused." (205)
Potentially useful in some other angle and blockquoting:
"This paper focuses on the trans-Limpopo region, an arid, low-lying (Lowveld) wilderness prone to flooding. Being rich in wildlife, a national park and resultant ecotourism utilities such as hotels, lodges, game trails, and viewing platforms have been accepted as the best developmental model for the region. One result has been the obliteration of the region’s vibrant and varied human history. Today this area is called Gonarezhou (a place of elephants), and whereas the ancestors of the people here had named this place in recognition of the utility of wildlife to them, colonial- ism transformed it to mean a primarily wildlife landscape exclusive of peo- ple (Mavhunga, 2002b, pp. 540-1; Anti-Slavery Reporter, February 1881, p. 19)" (205-6)
Firearms as a superior technology for wildlife exploitation.
Diffusion through marketplaces, colonizers sell to one group, group sells to other groups. Lack of governmental control of all regions meant that one government's merchants would sell you guns even if another's wouldn't; in addition, some merchants ignored regulations. Missionaries providing British firearms!
"Other than the obvious commercial value of enabling ivory hunting and slave raiding, firearms were items of heritage, societal prestige, and symbols of mas- culinity. They fed into patriarchy (Wagner, 1980, pp. 328-37)." (208) Gender! They were political and commercial and personal. Taking down the whole individual/group dichotomy.
"more efficient exploitation of ivory and slave exports" (209) Parallels between ivory trade and slave trade are interesting from a human/animal boundaries position, although even though this paper is combining them so far I'd be hesitant to do too much of that without way more research.
"a vi- cious circle emerged in which breech-loading rifles and muskets were both instruments with which to raid for slaves and ivory, and commodities of exchange to buy off powerful polities in the interior, which then raided for slaves on behalf of the Boers. At the same time, some of the male children captured were taken to the Zoutpansberg, trained, and sent back to hunt for ivory in return for their ultimate emancipation. These “apprentices,” as the Boers called them, became excellent marksmen who, through ivory hunting earned their freedom, returned to their societies, and became a distinct social class (Wagner, 1980, pp. 324-5). In another sense, too, these swart skuts (black shots) were agents of firearms proliferation as well as users. The freed swart skut was, therefore, an important conduit through which gun technology-as ideas and objects-spread from the Boers to African communities." (211) Wow. The Boers could just walk into a village, kill all the adults, and enslave all the children --- who then learned to shoot, took guns back with them, and taught the remaining villages how to defend against the Boers. _Wow._
The Venda not only served as a conduit for the physical guns, but also taught repair and how to make ammunition; indigenous knowledge about explosives from compost/dung was combined with the knowledge from the Europeans into making amunition.
"The extent of arms shipments fluctuated with developments in Europe; after the Crimean (1854-56), Austro-Prussian (1866), and Franco-Prussian (1870) wars, large numbers of firearms were offloaded onto the market, depressing prices and increasing African bargaining power." (214-5) Would not have thought of that but it makes perfect sense. I bet similar things happen today.
European powers were willing to give up guns but wanted to avoid giving up machine guns, rockets, and so on.
More on war as a mechanism for transfer: "In this way, the battleground emerges as a stage for tech- nology transfer, with the forced migration of the defeated a form of diffu- sion. A battle is a technological confrontation. It shows how-unlike in modern warfare in which prisoners of war surrender and their weapons are quartered-precolonial warfare was annihilistic. One went into battle to win or die; surrender meant death at the enemy’s hands. A battle was, therefore, both a theater for firearms to be used and a source of firearms. In battle, the defeated lost their weapons together with their lives-usual- ly there was no ambush, the columns fighting in massed formation either on flanks, on the frontage, or from deep in reserve. The winner took all, especially the weapons." (217)
Laws in late 1800s/early 1900s led to a "wild west" style frontier where those who didn't want to disarm went, a "no-man’s land in the southeastern Lowveld." (218) Forrestall in Chivi gave out weapons to "native detectives," " the first instance in which Africans were deliberately armed by the state to carry out official duties." (218) Disarmament came after a failed rebellion in 1896-7.
Page 222, radiation and diffusion as complementary, using example of how guns are manufactured in imitation
Page 224, use of guns for poaching as ecoterrorism? This is a really interesting argument. "consistent with my attempt to look at technological transfer from unorthodox dimensions, I believe the term can apply to human actions that hampered existing sustainable methods of resource utilization; in particular poaching. Human beings could not inflict this harm without technology. Hence the tools are just as important as the ideas behind actions"
Talking about "the camp" here, even though it's a different kind of camp, it is difficult not to think of Agamben. I wonder if that is intentional. "tive dynamics. The camp is a frontier where two technologies fuse together, not through the conventional legal channels, but through the under- ground, with the poacher’s hunting camp as a key analytical site. Deliber- ate forms of environmental terrorism are as abundant as accidental forms." (225) treatment of wild animals as bare life? Poisoning zebras to kill lions? Ugh. Page 226 is a goldmine for this kind of analysis.
This entry was originally posted at http://rax.dreamwidth.org/70927.html.