The drought of the 1960s

Sandy Grant | Wednesday July 8, 2015 15:50

This was so long lasting and so devastating that it now seems slightly surprising that it left no visible mark, no obvious scar of any kind which would tell younger generations about those years which, for so many, were very tough.  It is indeed amazing that nature can recover so quickly. I imagine, for instance, that those who fought in the First World War in Flanders in northern Europe would not have believed that the totally ruined landscape could ever be restored to normality.  Here, a third to a half of the country’s entire national herd died and it might have been believed that it would take years before those numbers were replaced.

Yet somehow this did happen relatively quickly. Similarly, ignorant newcomers to the country as myself, looked at the environment and assumed that this was its normal state with not a wisp of grass or weed on the ground and not a leaf on any of the trees and thickets.  Naturally locals were quick to explain that in normal years they did have food from their cattle and goats, that they did go to the lands, did plough and did raise crops. It was almost impossible to believe.  Yet, looking back from today’s vantage point, it may well be contended that the normal years are those of drought or semi- drought, not those of abundant rain. 

Why then did people forget so quickly that  water needed to be conserved and sparingly used?  I suggest (the word preferred by the really pompous is the synonym, ‘posit’) that the dramatic change of lifestyle brought about by diamond wealth has obliterated so much of the memory and knowledge accumulated by rural communities from years of want and hardship.

Urban life today has isolated a huge chunk of the population from its natural environment. In a country such as this one, modern towns, in contrast to the traditional towns, are cocooned in a fabricated state and their inhabitants can remain for years sublimely unaware that cash alone cannot eliminate their extreme vulnerability.  It may be that this is still styled a cattle country but it is likely to be another reality that the thousands of urban young today know as much about cattle as they do about giraffes and gemsbok. 

I assume, and being no linguist that’s all I can do, that remoteness from cattle and a cattle dependent way of life has meant that a significant part of the language is now lost to them. I might speculate that 30 or so years of diamond wealth has already brought about a recognisable difference between urban and rural language – an interesting aspect of heritage on which Dr Otlogetswe would seem to be the ideal person to comment.