Reaction To Bolling’s Himba Article

ALLOW me a chance to correct some errors that Professor Michael Bolling made in his article (“The ‘Rotating Pot’ Himba Livestock Ownership Rights and Inheritance” – The Namibian, 05/05/27) about ownership and inheritance rights among the Himbas.

For a multi-cultural country like Namibia, correct cross-cultural understanding might be of considerable interest to the general public; therefore, it’s imported to correct Prof. Bolling’s mistakes as soon as possible.Nonetheless, Prof.Bolling is to be commended for trying to foster understanding.Unfortunately, perhaps because of haste or the language barrier, Prof.Bolling made errors that effectively distorted the Himbas’ livestock ownership rights and inheritance practices into an unrecognisable caricature for those of us in the Himba community.First, it is absolutely incorrect to claim that “property rights in cattle are held by the head of a homestead.”This, however, is the kind of answer a stranger would get if he develops no trust and the people feel preyed upon.The fact is that the head of the homestead owns “property rights” only to his personal cattle.The Himba’s property ownership rights system is highly egalitarian based on familial and kinship relations, and so too is the relationship of the head of the homestead to the other residents.He’s strictly a relative and doesn’t own anybody.Besides, individual members of a homestead are liable to own cattle due to factors (work) or relations that are not dependent on the head of their homestead.Take the example of his own children, for instance.They are likely to inherit cattle from their uncles (mom’s brothers), and cannot lose the “property rights” to those cattle simply because they brought them home where their father is the head of their homestead.Second, “tolerated theft” is not part of the Himba’s inheritance practice, as Prof.Bolling claimed.The adverbial phrase “to bite” or okurumata in Himba/Herero/Mbanderu language, when it is applied to an inheritance, merly means get a minor or small inheritance.Clearly a figurative speech, it means, as it were, to take a bite as opposed to eating the whole thing.”To bite” (okurumata) is not stealing and the people who engage in it – “the biters” (ovarumate) – are legitimate minor beneficiaries with well recognised rights and who always openly receive their equitable share of the estate of the deceased.The “biters” are minor beneficiaries who “bite” inherit minor shares, never thieves.They can inherit anything from as little as an assegai to as much as a few beasts.But there is such a thing as “tolerable theft” among the Himbas that Prof.Bolling must have confused with inheritance.It has, however, nothing to do with inheritance.It is okuramba eria; literary, it means to “chase an eat” or “chase a meal” and it’s a maintenance issue where, because of exigency, a relative quickly disposes of the animal of another without permission.”Chasing a meal” is an emergency maintenance measure.To be “tolerated,” the “meal chaser” has to be a relative or a charge of the owner; not be a habitual thief; has to be in dire need; has to be hard-pressed for both time and space so as to be unable to go and ask the owner for permission before disposing of the animal.Also, he has to get rid of the animal very quickly.He can’t keep the animal for a long time, such as farming.The best test is: the “meal chaser” would have to have such a relationship and be in such a dire situation that had the owner been there himself, he would have given him the animal anyway.Kamanene Mupya Via e-mailBolling’s mistakes as soon as possible.Nonetheless, Prof.Bolling is to be commended for trying to foster understanding.Unfortunately, perhaps because of haste or the language barrier, Prof.Bolling made errors that effectively distorted the Himbas’ livestock ownership rights and inheritance practices into an unrecognisable caricature for those of us in the Himba community.First, it is absolutely incorrect to claim that “property rights in cattle are held by the head of a homestead.”This, however, is the kind of answer a stranger would get if he develops no trust and the people feel preyed upon.The fact is that the head of the homestead owns “property rights” only to his personal cattle.The Himba’s property ownership rights system is highly egalitarian based on familial and kinship relations, and so too is the relationship of the head of the homestead to the other residents.He’s strictly a relative and doesn’t own anybody.Besides, individual members of a homestead are liable to own cattle due to factors (work) or relations that are not dependent on the head of their homestead.Take the example of his own children, for instance.They are likely to inherit cattle from their uncles (mom’s brothers), and cannot lose the “property rights” to those cattle simply because they brought them home where their father is the head of their homestead.Second, “tolerated theft” is not part of the Himba’s inheritance practice, as Prof.Bolling claimed.The adverbial phrase “to bite” or okurumata in Himba/Herero/Mbanderu language, when it is applied to an inheritance, merly means get a minor or small inheritance.Clearly a figurative speech, it means, as it were, to take a bite as opposed to eating the whole thing.”To bite” (okurumata) is not stealing and the people who engage in it – “the biters” (ovarumate) – are legitimate minor beneficiaries with well recognised rights and who always openly receive their equitable share of the estate of the deceased.The “biters” are minor beneficiaries who “bite” inherit minor shares, never thieves.They can inherit anything from as little as an assegai to as much as a few beasts.But there is such a thing as “tolerable theft” among the Himbas that Prof.Bolling must have confused with inheritance.It has, however, nothing to do with inheritance.It is okuramba eria; literary, it means to “chase an eat” or “chase a meal” and it’s a maintenance issue where, because of exigency, a relative quickly disposes of the animal of another without permission.”Chasing a meal” is an emergency maintenance measure.To be “tolerated,” the “meal chaser” has to be a relative or a charge of the owner; not be a habitual thief; has to be in dire need; has to be hard-pressed for both time and space so as to be unable to go and ask the owner for permission before disposing of the animal.Also, he has to get rid of the animal very quickly.He can’t keep the animal for a long time, such as farming.The best test is: the “meal chaser” would have to have such a relationship and be in such a dire situation that had the owner been there himself, he would have given him the animal anyway.Kamanene Mupya Via e-mail