Why the difference matters between ultimate and proximate causes: an example

The [anti-baboon poisoning] campaign’s collateral damage is clearest in the compensation record. In March 1953, for example, two Fulani herders received £50 after losing eighteen cattle and six sheep that drank from a poisoned water hole. Officials marked contaminated sites and instructed Native Authorities to notify village heads and Fulani chiefs, but these precautions were unevenly effective, especially given pastoral mobility and the uneven circulation of information. When doubts arose about whether herders had been adequately warned, token compensation was sometimes paid in the interest of preserving local relations, revealing both the administrative limits and political sensitivities of the campaign.

(accessed online at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6898438)

Of course, colonialism caused this wrongful campaign. But it is also true that the campaign was first proven wrong by the Fulani, and importantly so among others.

One thought on “Why the difference matters between ultimate and proximate causes: an example

Leave a comment