GEORGE NEWS - Many "brown" people of South Africa are confused about their identity, and in search of it they are desperately trying to rekindle their ancient cultural traditions and heritage. This is reflected in, among others, traditional "chiefs" appearing on the scene during the past decade who claim to have authority over certain "clans" or "tribes".
According to retired school principal and former mayor of George, Sydney Opperman, these tribes do not exist any more and therefore the so-called chiefs have no rightful claim to be in such positions of power.
Opperman asks whether for these chiefs it is all about the monetary compensation they could qualify for if the proposed Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill is promulgated.
"Tribes in the "brown" community no longer exist, so this is a false chieftainship. Our government is trying with the assistance of the National Khoisan Council to resurrect some kind of tribal system that has been out of existence for about 200 years," he says.
'Khoi-San a thumb-suck name'
He says there is a huge misunderstanding among his people of the name used for the indigenous people of Southern Africa. This confusion stems from the degradation and dehumanisation caused by apartheid, as well as the name of Southern Africa's original, indigenous nation - the Otentottu - that became a name of reproach ("Hotnot") under European oppressors.
Just as with the false chieftainship, the name "Khoi-San" given to "brown" people is a "thumb-suck" name. Therefore the bill is based on inaccuracies and a tribe system that does not exist. "I think before a bill like this is published, 'brown' people must first know who they are. Then we can get back to the drawing board."
Read Sydney Opperman's full comment on the proposed Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill here.
He says similar terms such as "Khoi-Khoi, KhoiKhoin, Khoesan, Khoe-Khoe and KhoeKhoen" are all misnomers as they have also never been recorded in any authentic historial records.
Land ownership debate and identity inseparable
He quotes research from historian and researcher Dr Cyril Hromnik that indicates that the so-called Khoisan "identity" was invented by a German named Leonhard Schultze in 1928.
"Nowhere before that time was this term ever recorded. Historically, linguistically, geographically, genetically, anthropologically or religiously there is absolutely nothing that can substantiate the notion of the so-called "Khoi-San" people group. Therefore the Khoi-San name (which has a different spelling and meaning from Schultze's original Khoisan concoction) as used in the new bill on traditional leaderhip is completely off the mark," he says.
"If our people do not even have the exact name that indicates our origin, how can we even begin to think we will find our true identity? The name issue, in regard to us as the indigenous people, is of utmost importance not only as it pertains to our past but very much also as it pertains to our inheritance, especially in terms of the land ownership debate.
"Surely we cannot enter into this debate with a 90-year-old history dating back to 1928? If we accept the 'Khoisan' or 'Khoi-San' identity, how will we prove in a court of law that our forefathers were the indigenous people?" Opperman also rejects other names used by the 'brown' community and academia, such as Khoi, San, Khoisan, Khoi-Khoi, Khoesan, and Khoi-Khoin.
Only two authentic names
There are only two names in the authentic historical records: Quena (Red People) and Otentottu (corrupted to Hottentotten or Hottentots) which means 'mixed or related people'.
Do you want to learn more? Opperman will be sharing his view in a series of articles which starts in this issue.
Read a related article: Calling of 'brown' people
Read more in Thursday's George Herald on 9 August, as well as online.
'We bring you the latest George, Garden Route news'
