The making of ‘loyals’ and ‘rebels’: the 1880 Transkei Rebellion and the Subversion of the chieftaincies of East Griqualand, 1874-1914

In the mid-1870s, influenced by the mineral revolution in southern Africa, the Cape responsible government began to extend colonial rule over the chiefdoms that inhabited the Mthatha- Mzimkhulu region. Although white officials initially negotiated with the leadership of these chiefdoms to accept colonial rule and depended heavily on them to implement new laws, ultimately the Cape government aimed to side-line indigenous political systems and replace them with magistrates and headmen. Colonial officials mistakenly equated indigenous political structures with dictatorial chiefs whose followers were subject to their personal ambitions. In fact chiefs were part of a collective leadership and were very aware and influenced by the needs of their adherents. This work is concerned with how the chieftaincies, or indigenous political systems, of the Mthatha-Mzimkhulu region responded, survived and adapted in the face of colonialism. The chieftaincies were remarkably resilient despite the political and economic changes brought on by colonialism and capitalism and were able to retain some degree of authority amongst their followers and at times obtain recognition from the colonial state. Interactions between the chieftaincies and the colonial state were complex, fluid and ever evolving. Some leaders of chiefdoms co-operated with colonial authorities, either over particular issues at certain times or more generally over longer periods, and were considered by colonial officials to be ‘loyal’. Yet, at other times they resisted the demands and changes being brought on by colonialism and were labelled as ‘rebels’. Questions of how the chieftaincies responded to colonial rule were most critical during the Transkei Rebellion of 1880, which is a central focus of this work. Some chieftaincies co-operated with and served with the colonial military forces in order to spare themselves from the economic and social disruption brought on by war and the confiscation of land by the victors. Other chieftaincies took up arms against the colonial state in an attempt to stop the increasingly unacceptable demands being made of them and to resist the negative changes that colonialism was bringing. Despite their ability to adapt, by the early years of the twentieth century hereditary leaders found themselves increasingly caught between the expectations of their followers and demands made by the colonial administration. Faced with increasing popular criticism, many leaders adapted ambiguous and shifting stances on issues concerning their followers

From Craft to Nature: The Emergence of Natural Teleology

A teleological explanation is an explanation in terms of an end or a purpose. So saying that ‘X came about for the sake of Y’ is a teleological account of X. It is a striking feature of ancient Greek philosophy that many thinkers accepted that the world should be explained in this way. However, before Aristotle, teleological explanations of the cosmos were generally based on the idea that it had been created by a divine intelligence. If an intelligent power made the world, then it makes sense that it did so with a purpose in mind, so grasping this purpose will help us understand the world. This is the pattern of teleological explanation that we find in the Presocratics and in Plato. However, with Aristotle teleology underwent a change: instead of thinking that the ends were explanatory because a mind had sought to bring them about, Aristotle took the ends to operate in natural beings independently of the efforts of any creative intelligence. Indeed, he thought that his predecessors had failed to understand what was distinctive of nature, namely, that its ends work from the inside of natural beings themselves

Aristotle on the Matter for Birth, Life, and the Elements

This essay considers three case studies of Aristotle’s use of matter, drawn from three different scientific contexts: menstrual fluid as the matter of animal generation in the Generation of Animals, the living body as matter of an organism in Aristotle’s On the Soul (De Anima), and the matter of elemental transformation in Generation and Corruption. I argue that Aristotle conceives of matter differently in these treatises (1) because of the different sorts of changes under consideration, and (2) because sometimes he is considering the matter for one specific change, and sometimes the matter for all of a thing’s natural changes. My account allows me to explain some of the strange features that Aristotle ascribes to the matter for elemental transformation in Generation and Corruption II. These features were interpreted by later commentators as general features of all matter. I argue that they are a result of the specific way that Aristotle thinks about the transmutation of the elements

What's a plant?

Ask yourself: what is a plant? You will probably answer that it is an organism able to photosynthesise chlorophyll. Depending on your level of knowledge in biology, your answer will be more or less elaborate. Now, ask a young child what a plant is, and their answer is likely to be very different. Their definition may centre on the notion of plant rootedness: a plant is something that is rooted to the ground and cannot move as a result