<i>Suffering for Territory: Race, Place, and Power in Zimbabwe</i> by Donald Moore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Donald Moore is an anthropologist based at Berkeley whose previous work is known to many geographers.One of his first published pieces appeared in Economic Geography during the early 1990s, while a similar study graced the pages of the now-classic volume Liberation Ecologies (Peet and Watts 1996) when the first edition appeared over a decade ago.Around this time Donald Moore suffered serious injuries in a car accident-injuries that have badly affected his physical mobility ever since.Happily, though, his powers of thought and expression survived the accident unscathed.Years in-the-making, Suffering for Territory is clearly the work of a fine mind.Rendered in often artful prose, this rich and rewarding book will, I hope, gain its author plaudits in both geography and his own disciplinary community.What's more, I hope this monograph is read widely outside the US, where Moore's work is currently best-known.Before explaining why I think this is such a good book, let me summarise its aims and focus.Suffering for Territory is a theoretically informed (and informative) ethnography.The territory in question is the Kaerezi Resettlement Scheme (KRS) in Zimbabwe's eastern highlands.This scheme was established after British southern Rhodesia became the nominally postcolonial, independent state of Zimbabwe in 1980.It made available-under certain terms and conditions-land that, during the colonial period, had been the white-owned Gaeresi Ranch.But Moore's story is no simple one of black smallholders' triumphant return to land they were previously displaced or excluded from by racialised property laws.Instead, he draws upon over two years of field research to narrate a complex tale about the making and remaking of this particular patch of territory.I quote Moore at length: "the [KRS] . . .overlay a chiefdom and rainmaking territory where several sovereigns asserted rule . . .State officials, a postcolonial chief, his headman, and a rainmaker all sought to influence resettlement.These competing practices of spatial discipline, sovereignty and subjection all coexisted at the same time in the same postcolonial place.Kaerezi's multiple and simultaneous spatialities conjured heterogenous histories.[Its] . . .landscape of rule was not the result of a serial succession of new rationalities and administrative designations [erasing] . . .previous power relations.Rather, previous sedimentations remained consequential even as they became reworked" (p 3).Moore focuses on how Kaerizians staked claims to territory during the 1990s.But in doing so he necessarily delves into the several histories not only of Kaerezi but of Zimbabwe as a whole, especially pre-independence.In nine consistently interesting chapters, prefaced by a long introduction, Moore depicts "an entangled landscape, in which multiple spatialities, temporalities, and power relations combine" (p 3).A major theme throughout is how "race" and ethnicity-contingent and mutable
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".