Dissecting the Kruger myth with blunt instruments: a rebuttal of Jane Carruthers's view

Abstract

The contribution of Paul Kruger to nature conservation is not, as Dr Jane Carruthers suggests, a myth, but a historical fact. In this paper it is argued that Carruthers did not consider the historical context in which Kruger's actions took place. Kruger, for instance, did not dominate the Volksraad and, in the Executive Council, did not always enjoy the support required for conservation reforms. In addition, the white farming community was for many years decidedly against game protection. To be sure, Kruger was not the only Transvaaler to promote the conservation cause, but given the position he held, he undoubtedly played a major, if not a decisive role in the crucial 1890s to ensure the survival of South Africa's wildlife heritage. This paper considers the period between 1883, when Kruger became president of the Transvaal Republic, and 1899 when the Second Anglo‐Boer war broke out. The myth theory is tested by evaluating Kruger's actions during these years — how, in the face of some stiff opposition, he persevered until success was assured. The conclusion arrived at is that the myth theory has no factual base. The Kruger National Park was deservedly named after Paul Kruger to commemorate his personal interest in nature conservation.