McDonald, Jared. (2015) Subjects of the Crown: Khoesan identity and assimilation in the Cape Colony, c. 1795- 1858. PhD thesis. SOAS University of London. http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/22831/ Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non‐commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder/s. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. When referring to this thesis, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given e.g. AUTHOR (year of submission) "Full thesis title", name of the School or Department, PhD Thesis, pagination. Subjects of the Crown: Khoesan Identity and Assimilation in the Cape Colony, c.1795-1858 Jared McDonald Department of History School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) University of London A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in History 2015 Declaration for PhD Thesis I declare that all the material presented for examination is my own work and has not been written for me, in whole or in part, by any other person. I also undertake that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of another person has been duly acknowledged in the thesis which I present for examination. Date: 30 June 2015 2 For my parents, Michael and Elsa McDonald, with love and appreciation 3 Abstract This thesis forwards a critical analysis of Khoesan assimilation in the Cape Colony between 1795 and 1858. The narrative traces Khoesan responses to colonial domination and representation with a particular focus on their identity as colonial subjects and the role that Khoesan, as assimilated ‘Hottentots’, played in the making of their own identity during this period. The study presents the hypothesis that British loyalism became a defining feature of ‘Hottentot’ identity during the early to mid-nineteenth century. Expressions of loyalty to the British Crown reflected ‘Hottentot’ claims to a civic identity that transcended their ethnically defined place within Cape colonial society. It is argued that ‘Hottentot’ loyalism functioned as a powerful collective identity that imbibed a sense of belonging to an imagined, British-inspired, civic nation via multiple and varied expressions of subjecthood. During the early nineteenth century, the Cape Colony witnessed spirited public debates over the desirability of the extension of civil rights to its indigenous subjects. In the process, ‘Hottentot’ subjecthood became entangled with loyalist impressions of empire which transcended local authorities and social hierarchies. The thesis contends that Khoesan appeals to social independence and ‘Hottentot’ nationalism – a label which has become standard in Cape historiography – did not run counter to loyalism, but rather functioned as affirmations of loyalism. The argument accommodates the seemingly contradictory, dual responses of resistance and assimilation, whereby assimilation as subjects became a potent form of resistance to settler colonialism. There was no universal group response to settler colonialism by the Cape Khoesan. The path to assimilated, ‘Hottentot’ subjecthood was determined by the individual’s degree of exposure to ideas and imaginings of imperial civic nationhood. Colonial law, evangelical-humanitarianism and imperial commissions of inquiry all functioned as important conduits of the notions of imperial subjecthood and loyalism; together, and to varying degrees, these influences shaped ‘Hottentot’ civic identity within the ambits of settler households and mission stations. 4 Table of Contents page Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Note on Terminology -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Glossary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 Maps and Illustrations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 Acknowledgements ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 Introduction Hypothesis, Historiography and Methodology -------------------------------------------------- 16 I. Setting the Scene: The Hypothesis and Aim of the Study -------------------------- 16 II. Assessing the Historiography ----------------------------------------------------------- 32 III. Methodology and Sources --------------------------------------------------------------- 48 IV. Chapter Scheme: Arrangement and Scope ------------------------------------------- 55 Chapter One Masters and Subjects: British Occupation and Khoesan Assimilation , 1795-1828 ----- 65 I. The British Colonial Turn and its Consequences for the Khoesan --------------- 70 II. Invoking Loyalism: The Caledon Code ------------------------------------------------ 93 III. Cradock’s Judicial Reforms and the Making of ‘Hottentot’ Subjects ------------- 102 IV. The Local and the Imperial: Re-prioritising Resistance --------------------------- 109 Chapter Two Debating Subjecthood through the Lens of San Experience, 1820-1840 ------------------ 115 I. San, Settler and Missionary on the Cape’s North-eastern Frontier -------------- 118 II. The “Cruel Barbarous Custom”: Frontier Trafficking in San Children ---------- 126 III. Communication Networks and the Extermination of the Cape San ------------- 155 IV. The Fate of the ‘Bushmen’ in the Service of ‘Hottentot’ Subjecthood ----------- 164 5 Chapter Three Civil Rights and Subjecthood: ‘Hottentot’ Loyalism in Contest, 1828-1834 --------------- 173 I. A Reappraisal of Ordinance 50 --------------------------------------------------------- 176 II. Proposed Vagrancy Legislation and ‘Hottentot’ Responses ---------------------- 188 III. ‘Hottentot’ Subjecthood in Defence of Civil Liberty -------------------------------- 206 Chapter Four Loyalty and Intimacy: ‘Hottentot’ Identity in Transition, 1830-1850 ---------------------- 221 I. Competing Loyalties: Masters, Missionaries and the Monarch ------------------ 230 II. The Ambiguities of Subjecthood within the Master’s Household ---------------- 249 III. The Farmstead as Moral Community -------------------------------------------------- 255 IV. Mobility in Question: The Master and Servant Inquiry, 1848 -------------------- 266 Chapter Five Between Loyalty and Rebellion: Reflections on ‘Hottentot’ Subjecthood amid Social 275 and Political Unrest, 1849-1858 ------------------------------------------------------------------- I. The Convict and Constitution Debates ------------------------------------------------ 280 II. The Menace of Farmstead Intimacy to Settler Society ----------------------------- 288 III. “Fear God, Honour the Queen”: Appealing to Loyalty to Quell Rebellion ------ 295 IV. Remnant ‘Voices’: ‘Hottentot’ Lives and Livelihoods in the 1850s -------------- 308 Conclusion A Question of Loyalism? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 317 Bibliography ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 329 6 Note on Terminology The historical account which unfolds in this thesis has been shaped by a critical consideration of the dual influences of labelling and lived experiences upon an indigenous people in a colonial setting. While the lived experiences of the central characters are emphasised, it is impossible to escape from the need to categorise and label such characters on the basis of their group membership, whether such membership was externally ascribed or internally aspired to. Nearly all of the social labels used in this thesis are contentious. This brief note serves to acknowledge the contests which exist concerning group labels in the Cape colonial context and to set out the choices made by the author in dealing with the naming of those social categories which appear in the following analysis. The label ‘Khoesan’ is used to refer to those individuals assimilated, to varying degrees, into the social conglomeration made up of the Cape’s formerly independent pastoralists and hunter-gatherers. Although coined in the twentieth century and applied retrospectively, the term does at least allude to the complex, mixed ancestry of the Cape’s labouring indigenous peoples during the early nineteenth century and at the same time, is free of the pejorative connotations of the contemporary colonial labels, ‘Hottentot’ and ‘Bushmen’. Its wide use in South African and Cape historiography points to difficulties in determining whether individuals were Khoekhoe or San with absolute certainty from the mid-eighteenth century onward. Where ‘Hottentot’ appears in historical documents, the tendency on the part of the academe has been to replace the term with Khoekhoe or a variation thereof, such as Khoikhoin or Khoena (the latter being grammatically gender inclusive). Translated to mean “men of men”, or “real people”, Khoekhoe was the term used by the Cape’s herders to refer to themselves and so, not surprisingly, has found traction among scholars. With regards to the ‘Bushmen’, San is commonly used instead. Yet, like the label ‘Bushmen’, San also has disparaging connotations, having been derived from