The term “poor whites” was coined during the 19th century, as the mineral revolution and development of mines forced smaller farmers off their land.[1] This led to an increase in urbanization, poverty and unemployment as many farmers lacked formal education. The largescale farmers also faced their own challenges, as environmental factors and diseases, such as the rinderpest of 1896, destroyed their livestock, resulting in a loss of livelihood, subsequently forcing them into poverty due to a loss of income. This resulted in the term “poor whites” becoming widespread. This term referred to poor white individuals, who were unable to provide for themselves, without the government’s financial aid.[2] Unfortunately, these circumstances did not improve at the start of the 20th century. The South African War (1899 – 1902) also left the country’s economy in ruins. Milner’s Scorched Earth policy destroyed 30 000 farms in the Transvaal and Orange Free State, causing an increase in unemployment, poverty and urbanization.[3] In the urban centres, many of these farmers remained unemployed, as they were unskilled workers, who could not compete with their employed and skilled British counterparts.[4] The impoverished farmers who remained in the rural areas became “bywoners”. The term “bywoners” refer to poor white farmers who traded their services for housing and grazing for their livestock on affluent farms.[5] The economy was crippled after the war and the Union of South Africa knew they had to act soon if they wanted to uphold the racial hierarchy where White South Africans had economic superiority. C.W. de Kiewiet, a South African historian, described the circumstances: “At the base of white society had gathered, like sediment, a race of men so abject in their poverty, so wanting in resourcefulness, that they stood dangerously close to the natives themselves.”[6] As a result, the South African Union addressed the rising poverty through using water schemes as political tools to uplift poor whites, while enhancing class differences between different races in South Africa. Various water schemes were developed, such as the construction of Buchuberg Dam, Hartbeespoort Dam and Skanskopeiland. This article specifically focuses on the development of the Kakamas Dam.

The development of the Kakamas water scheme was unique, when compared to previous developments of dams. It showed the role that the church played in uplifting poor whites. Lanie van Vuren, a water historian, stated that the class of poor whites consisted mostly of Afrikaans speakers who were members of the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC).[7] The congregation’s calls to alleviate their poverty pressurized the Dutch Reformed Church to take action.[8] This resulted in the development of labour colonies, where poor whites would be rehabilitated through religion and uplifted through provision of education, food and clothing.

In 1894 the church investigated how they could uplift poor whites in their congregation and came up with a solution. They had to create a water settlement close to the Orange River (Northern Cape). They started discussing their plans with the Cape government and three years later, in 1897, the DRC was given two farms, Soetap and Kakamas, to establish an irrigation settlement.[9] On 4 July 1898 poor white families were officially relocated to Kakamas where they had to start construction on the dam. It was clear from the start that this water scheme was set on maintaining white economic superiority. Only white labourers were employed for 3 shillings a day, with the promise of owning allotted irrigation ground after finishing the construction of the dam.[10] They were also sold food and clothes at cost price from a warehouse that only they could access. To maintain a racial hierarchy and separate poor whites from black urban slums, the church’s water scheme also focused on educating poor whites On 18 July 1898 the first canvas tent was used as a school where 30 pupils attended classes.[11] Obtaining a better education became compulsory for all the settlers at the Kakamas Dam, regardless of age. The goal was to enable these poor whites to become skilled labourers that could compete with their skilled, British counterparts in urban centres.

Besides uplifting poor whites from their economic position, this scheme also focused on moral and social rehabilitation. All the settlers were given access to water, through their own leading sluice.[12] To instil self-discipline the settlers had to maintain and clean their own furrows. These settlers were also taught to value their land as they were still required to pay ten pounds annually as rent.[13] They also had to adhere to strict rules on conduct, such as attending all Sunday services, the ban of alcohol, dancing and attending school.[14] If these rules were not adhered to, they would either be fined or removed from the grounds. Ultimately, the DRC hoped to restore the respect of the poor whites, through education, employment and strict social rules. This, of course, came at the cost of uplifting other racial groups in South Africa, which worsened class segregation and inequality. Other racial groups were degraded for poor whites to regain respect and have a higher standard of living than black communities living in the slums. The church ultimately believed that if urbanized poor whites moved back to rural areas, referred to as “back to the land”, they would be able to rehabilitate white families socially and economically.[15]

This irrigation scheme continued for approximately 50 years, with the exception of the years during the South African War, when the scheme was suspended. At the start of the scheme, extremely hard physical labour was required with the heat affecting productivity. Effective and fast transportation also remained an issue, as tools and materials were transported with wagons for 418 km’s to the end of the De Aar railway.[16] But the promise of land kept the men in check. By April 1899 the left bank furrow of the dam was completed and the first 60 workers received their first plots of 5 hectares.[17] The  South African War caused the construction process to halt, but continued after the signing of the peace accord on 31 May 1902 in Pretoria (Johannesburg). By 1912 the left and right bank furrow of the dam was completed. During the construction process, the church bought nine more farms to expand the Kakamas water scheme and continue alleviating poor whites. In 1913 Kakamas officially became a state work colony.[18] In 1921 the Kakamas water scheme already provided land, food and work for 3000 settlers.[19] This grew to 574 families by 1945.[20] These settlers mainly produced beans, wheat and peas.[21]

The Kakamas irrigation scheme was an effective way to alleviate the poor white problem. But the racial discrimination of the scheme cannot be ignored. Even though the scheme was funded by the Dutch Reformed Church, the Union of South Africa supported its goals, making land available for the church to obtain. While it did uplift a class of poor whites through education, employment, land and water rights, it was at the cost of all other racial groups in South Africa. It enabled poor whites to distinguish themselves from impoverished black communities to uphold the concept of racial superiority. The very roots of this water scheme caused racism and inequality to grow in South Africa. 

 

[1] Visser, K. & Du Pisani, K., “Die vestiging van Skanskopeiland besproeiingnedersetting as ’n mylpaal in selfwerksame armoedeverligting”, Historia (Vol. 57), p. 103 - 104.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Bottomley, Edward-John. “Transnational Govermentality and the “poor White” in Early Twentieth Century South Africa.” Journal of Historical Geography, (Vol.54), (2016): 78.

[4] Bottomley, Edward-John. “Transnational Govermentality and the “poor White” in Early Twentieth Century South Africa.” Journal of Historical Geography, (Vol.54), (2016): 78.

[5] Van Vuren, L. “Kakamas – oases in the dessert”, Historia, (Vol. 10), (No. 2), (2011), p. 26.

[6] Visser, K. & Du Pisani, K., “Die vestiging van Skanskopeiland besproeiingnedersetting as ’n mylpaal in selfwerksame armoedeverligting”, Historia (Vol. 57), p. 103, 104.

[7] Van Vuren, L. “Kakamas – oases in the dessert”, Historia, (Vol. 10), (No. 2), (2011), p. 26.

[8] Ibid.

[9]Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Van Vuren, L. “Kakamas – oases in the dessert”, Historia, (Vol. 10), (No. 2), (2011), p. 28.

[13]Ibid.  

[14] Ibid.

[15]Visser, K. & Du Pisani, K., “Die vestiging van Skanskopeiland besproeiingnedersetting as ’n mylpaal in selfwerksame armoedeverligting”, Historia (Vol. 57), p. 103, 104.

[16]Van Vuren, L. “Kakamas – oases in the dessert”, Historia, (Vol. 10), (No. 2), (2011), p. 27.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Visser, K. & Du Pisani, K., “Die vestiging van Skanskopeiland besproeiingnedersetting as ’n mylpaal in selfwerksame armoedeverligting”, Historia (Vol. 57), p. 103, 104.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Van Vuren, L. “Kakamas – oases in the dessert”, Historia, (Vol. 10), (No. 2), (2011), p. 27 - 28.

[21] Ibid.

References
  • Bottomley, Edward-John. “Transnational Govermentality and the “poor White” in Early Twentieth Century South Africa.” Journal of Historical Geography, (Vol.54), (2016): 78.
  • Van Vuren, L. “Kakamas – oases in the dessert”, Historia, (Vol. 10), (No. 2), (2011), 26 – 29.
  • Visser, K. & Du Pisani, K., “Die vestiging van Skanskopeiland besproeiingnedersetting as ’n mylpaal in selfwerksame armoedeverligting”, Historia (Vol. 57), p. 103 – 126.

Collections in the Archives