8^th December 2016

 

Summary

We as the First Nation of South Africa want to acknowledge the innovative and creative leadership that was provided by South Africa’s liberation movement. We recognize and appreciate the work that has been done in getting statutory recognition for the KhoiSan-Coloured Nation. We are fully attentive of the work and efforts by passionate bureaucrats and functionaries who are developing legal framework that would make a substantial contribution towards the full liberation of all Indigenous people of South Africa. We however, want to equally bring to the attention of the Committee that although the late President Nelson Mandela acknowledge the KhoiSan as the First Indigenous Nation of South Africa by instituting the National Khoi-San Council, he miscarried by not giving the NKSC the necessary resources, including his letdown in providing a budget. He miscarried in not restoring the Coloured Identity under his watch. He miscarried by signing the Land away during the negotiations pre-democracy. Yet, we forgive him.

Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa (IFNASA) believe that the entities with which we engage, particularly government, are fabricating by default the terms and conditions of a ‘Novel Agreement’. A Negotiated Settlement Agreements (NSA) must involve the Indigenous First Nation as “Mutual Partners”, oppose to being mere ‘Participants’, the terms and conditions of the agreements should become the building blocks of arrangements that are inherently more just than the imposed administrative solutions to which us as the First Nation of SA had so long been subjected too.

At the heart of the political conundrum South Africa face is directly linked to the unresolved Land Question. The situation will persist until government call for an honest “Settlement” table where the Indigenous First Nation will have an opportunity to settle the overdue Land and Identity dichotomy. The doctrine of Self-determination, to us as the First Indigenous Nation, is the most essential of our right to recognition, above all other rights, and the gestures made by the State to diagnose the possibilities is noteworthy. For all but very few governments where Aboriginal people are located, this demand remains perplexing. Consequently, Article 3 of the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which deals with self-determination, has become the major bone of contention in the drafting process. Many governments want either to replace the term “self-determination” or to narrowly define it to mean “self-government” and “autonomy”.

The “self-determination” doctrine demand is raised primarily by government due to their fear that recognition of self-determination in its widest sense would have the potential of undermining the integrity and stability of the State. We want to state unconditional, we have no intention to dislocate the government as the legal guardian of South Africa’s independence. For the SA Indigenous First Nation, the recognition of the right to self-determination is, however, a question of Justice, Parity and Fairness of being treated like all other peoples. We are struggling with the Coloured terminology and suffer great injustice and humiliation, incessantly.  Self-determination is one of the fundamental rights of peoples in international law. It is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Social and Cultural Rights. Aware of the inherent link between the concept of peoples and the right to self-determination, many governments also oppose using the term “indigenous peoples” in the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and insist on replacing it with “indigenous people” or “indigenous populations”.

The Recognition of the KhoiSan which is currently unfolding in SA and against the international discourse comes with a mix-bag of interpretations. The disorganized manner in which these hearings happens cannot be missed by any sober thinking KhoiSan activist and leaders alike.

The underlying motives of why the department hastily instituted these hearings makes us apprehensive and very concern. The process of reconciliation that the government set out in motion since 1997 in bringing “Statutory Recognition”  happens in a vacuum, since the government failed to address the issues as it pertains to the Identity and Genocide meted against the so called Coloured people, Seed of the Aboriginal or First Nation of South Africa. The government’s “One Nation” policy advancement reinforce the government’s denial that colonialism and apartheid decimation the once self-sustaining nomads of our beautiful land enjoyed.

As the South African First Indigenous population, we acknowledge that we are a very heterogeneous people. We have more than five broad categories of indigenous communities which we identified, unlike the groupings recognized by the government, although care needs to be taken in the use of terminologies and identification, including the general descriptors. No two communities are identical. Each reflects its own unique cultural background, historical experiences and local conditions. Communities differ in the degree to which they have been subjected to dispossession, dispersal and the destruction of their economies and law during the colonisation process.

If we take this process of recognizing the KhoiSan Nation serious, it is critical that we contextualize recognition and it desired outcome. Perhaps we should ask, what is it that we all hope to achieve with recognition? Until we honestly answer this question, we will continue shooting in the dark and future generations will judge us harshly. So, what do we want with the TKSLB? Recognition of the KhoiSan-Coloured Nation or the Indigenous Black Africans, so called, cannot be true recognition until we talk about Land.

IFNASA advance that the indigenous systems hold key components of how to substantively change the lives of all South Africans for the better. Clarification of rights (which SA lacks) and the establishment of cultural and political autonomy for the KhoiSan, based on formal recognition, form the main content of such improvements.

 

Indigenous Population Definition

In order to do justice and provide context to our claims as the Indigenous First Nation of South Africa we need to make a comparative study with other Indigenous First Nations internationally. A once Special Rapporteur of the United Nations (UN) Sub-Commission, José Martinez Cobo, formulated a “working definition” in his Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations, which states that:

“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.” José Martínez Cobo, Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4, para 379.

Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur outlines a list of factors that may be relevant in defining indigenous peoples and identifying their historical continuity. He expresses the view that such historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present, of one or more of the following factors: (1) occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them; (2) common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands; (3) culture in general, or in specific manifestations, (4) language; (5) residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world; (6) other relevant factors.

The Special Rapporteur also includes self-identification as indigenous as a fundamental element in his working definition: on an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who belongs to these indigenous peoples through self-identification as indigenous (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by the group as one of its members (acceptance by the group).

This preserves for these communities the sovereign right and power to decide who belongs to them, without external interference.

ILO Convention No. 169 article 1.1 (b) describes indigenous peoples as follows:

“… peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.”

 

Objection:

We Reject the Bill because:

• The Bill wants us to prove hereditary (genetically) our identity.
• The Bill fails to recognize the atrocities meted against our ancestors and continue today under a new democratic dispensation.
• The Bill does not provide return of Land and Recompense for economic losses suffered by the KhoiSan-Coloured Nation.

• The Bill is not an honest legal offering.

 

Allow us the following questions:

• Did Cogta consider Recognition in the context of Land?
• Why should we prove our KhoiSan claim?
• Why does the Bill refuse to give the KhoiSan First Nation Status?
• What will happen to the Identity and Land lost by the KhoiSan ancestors?

 

We as the Aboriginal people of South Africa want and need a judicial system and processes that recognizes the atrocities perpetrated against our forefather’s including the onslaught against our disposition and dispossession currently, our own values and beliefs, while the TKSLB fails in this regard. Agreement-making power would give us the ability to negotiate directly with government. It would give us more protection for our children and grandchildren. Where is Our Justice!

May the spirit of our Ancestors rise and Restored!

Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Bill Hearings
28th November 2016

Summary

Prosperity, Peace and Justice be upon you.
The inexcusable and outrageous clarification of the KhoiSan First Nation Status to parliament last week by Deputy Minister Obed Bapela must persuade all of us as the collective South African community in condemning his comments and allegations. We quote: “Let’s not go into the temptation of giving ‘Them’ the First-Nation Status.” (Source: http://www.news24.com ) We submit that the Deputy Minister Bapela mentioned the word ‘Them’ in a condescending, arrogant, egotistical and disrespectful manner. Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa (IFNASA) calls on the Deputy Minister to ‘Apologize’ unreservedly to the KhoiSan-Coloured Nation at the outset of today’s hearings? IFNASA is furious by his self-absorbed behavior.
IFNASA believe that the entities with which we engage, particularly government, are fabricating by default the terms and conditions of a ‘Novel Agreement’. A Negotiated Settlement Agreements must involve the Indigenous First Nation as “Mutual Partners”, oppose to being mere ‘Participants’, the terms and conditions of the agreements should become the building blocks of arrangements that are inherently more just than the imposed administrative solutions to which us as the First Nation of SA had so long been subjected too.

Currently, there is no recognition of how Coloureds lost their identity and the relationship to their ancestral Land, which forms the basis of the Indigenous First Nation’s Identity, and that our indigenous peoples’ cultures cannot be preserved without a certain degree of Control over Land and natural resources, which remains mysterious in SA. During the colonization progression, however, indigenous peoples (Coloureds) lost identity, ownership and control over their ancestral language, lands, culture, heritage and from the end of the 19th century onwards the existence of inherent indigenous land rights, i.e. rights not derived from the colonial powers but rooted solely in the use and ownership of the land by indigenous peoples since time immemorial, had been completely denied. The TKSLB does not offer accurate historical context, infect, the Bill starts talking about Khoi-San in a vacuum? The KhoiSan community ‘Never’ had the opportunity to effectively deal with the genocide meted against their ancestors, why? Our increased pressure with the support of international institutions, must force our government to start recognizing the Coloured identity through the existence of their inherent indigenous identity and land rights. The continued denial of the government regarding Coloured people’s link to their KhoiSan ancestry defeats the entire Bill Recognition process.

Our presentation highlights how the Indigenous First Nation or KhoiSan Land Rights should be recognized and protected if the South African government seriously want to address the legacy of both colonialism and apartheid. It’s important to address such rights in the context of all Indigenous Africans of South Africa too. Governments like the United States, Canada and New Zealand develop generous studies on First Nations and all these countries acts completely different in the execution of their respective recognition of First Nations and its obligations under international law, but nevertheless, all these Governments have some ground breaking undertakings regarding the realization and protection of their indigenous people’s land rights, while South Africa can learn from these country’s experiences. Our government and the KhoiSan leaders negotiating with the state need to understand the importance of comparative analysis. The Canadian constitution section 35 opened the door for negotiating and implementing the inherent right to self-government, and this move shifted the sovereignty discourse towards an academically and legally accepted assumption that Aboriginal self-government is a Constitutional right. The devastating remarks of the department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Deputy Minister Obed Bapela against the KhoiSan First Nation Status claim, in parliament last week affirms that the government stubbornly persist with the annihilation project which started with the colonial invasion.

We quote: “Let’s not go into the temptation of giving ‘Them’ the First-Nation Status”. Who is ‘Them’? Why should ‘Them’ not get First Nation Status? What is the ‘Secret’ about ‘Them’? We submit that the Deputy Minister Bapela mentioned the word ‘Them’ in a condescending and disrespectful manner.

While the Deputy Minister speaks out of anxiety and obliviousness, notably Canada recognizes that the inherent right of self-government is an existing aboriginal right under their Constitution which includes the right of indigenous peoples to govern themselves in matters that are internal to their communities or integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and in respect to their special relationship with their land and their resources. This right of self-government includes jurisdiction over the definition of governance structures, First Nation membership, family matters, education, health and property rights, among other subjects; however, in order to exercise this jurisdiction, agreements must be negotiated with the federal Government, in the Canadian context. The SA constitution implore that the lawmaking agencies consider international law when developing local laws. The South African government continue to reject the claim of the KhoiSan Sovereignty, because they simply never allowed for honest discussion and research. The majority of the KhoiSan Nation have no clue what Aboriginal Sovereignty means. Sovereignty can be expressed both in the sense of literal separation and in the sense of recognizing and legitimizing inherent Aboriginal claims to land, identity, and politics (Maaka and Fleras, 2005: 37).

The early definition of Aboriginal sovereignty was expressed by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians in the 1970s as the inherent and absolute right to govern, where the state has power to which “none other is superior or equal” (Maaka and Fleras, 2005: 49). In the Aboriginal context specifically, sovereignty is a concept that is “founded on an ideology of indigenous nationalism and a rejection of the models of government rooted in European cultural values” (Alfred, 2001: 26). An important component of Aboriginal sovereignty is the rejection of “conventional forms of ‘Western’ society-building associated with multiculturalism, individual rights, and universal equality” (Maaka and Fleras, 2005: 7). Claims around sovereignty challenge the “colonial agendas that have had a controlling (systemic) effect in privileging national (white) interests at the expense of indigenous rights” (Maaka and Fleras, 2005: 13) and instead privilege the right of a nation to define and act on its politics without interference from other sovereign nations.

The definition of sovereignty can be problematic. Many Aboriginal scholars recognize the European roots of the term and associate with it the necessary existence of a unitary, official, coercive political body or a head of state; the British tradition of political thought that bore the concept of sovereignty is perceived as dissonant or incompatible with many Aboriginal concepts of governance. As Alfred explains, the European understanding of sovereignty in statist and institutional terms creates a danger for Aboriginal people using the term to further their claims, because in doing so, they “are making a choice to accept the state as their model and to allow indigenous political goals to be framed and evaluated according to a ‘statist’ patters. Thus the common criteria of statehood … come to dominate discussion of indigenous peoples’ political goals as well” (1999: 56–57).
It is our endeavor to assist the KhoiSan Nation better understand the doctrine of sovereignty which must remain a central focus as we unpack the different dimensions and the true meaning of the word which must be thoroughly explored in an effort to understand the challenges inherent in framing our First Nations’ self-determination narrative in a South African context. Accordingly, this submission takes as its departure point the existing and legitimate right of Aboriginal self-government. In Canada and Norway we are witnessing commensurable processes of social structural change which to a large extent are directed towards improving, on a broad scale, the conditions for indigenous peoples within these nation states.

IFNASA advance that the indigenous systems hold key components of how to substantively change the lives of all South Africans for the better. Clarification of rights (which SA lacks) and the establishment of cultural and political autonomy for the KhoiSan, based on formal recognition, form the main content of such improvements. In Norway the Sámi have been subject to a comprehensive inquiry on rights carried out by the Sámi Rights Commission, appointed by the Norwegian government in 1980. This Commission, an investigation of the northernmost part of Norway (Finnmark), has delivered five substantial reports (NOU 1984, 1993, 1994, 1997a, 1997b; these amount to 2,490 pages in all), including proposals for new legislation. The last published report appeared early in 1997, and deals with Sámi rights to land and water. A report connected to the Sámi Rights Process, but independent of the official Sámi Rights Commission, was published more recently, adding 692 pages to the bulk of documents produced so far (NOU 2001). Why does the South African government persist in ignoring the glaring deficiencies or deficits within the Bill content and context?

As we conclude, it is noteworthy to mention that from the mid-20th century most governments completely disregarded demands by indigenous peoples to have their inherent rights to their ancestral lands recognized and protected, this began to change after the Second World War. Under the impression of the unprecedented scale of atrocities committed against parts of the own population in National Socialist Germany, there was a general agreement among governments that never again shall a State become an instrument to suppress and marginalize certain minorities. The comments of the Deputy Minister Bapela compete against international best practice which is gaining stimulating traction. The Deputy Minister is unashamedly advancing the perpetuation of the massacre of identity slaughter against the Coloured-KhoiSan Nation in the name of defending South Africa’s sovereignty? In the wake of the decolonization demands by the South African tertiary students and processes within the US civil rights movements and the growing importance of human rights, governments and societies must begin to realize that in the past great injustices had been committed against indigenous peoples, especially the so called Coloureds and the keyword of ‘Settlement’ must be taking center stage in the relationship between our national government and indigenous people of South Africa. In the course of this TKSLB development, the government moved further away from the view that the Indigenous First Nation and the Indigenous Black Africans of South Africa are not primitive and backward societies which for their own good had to be assimilated into mainstream society. Instead, it became increasingly accepted that indigenous cultures had and have an intrinsic value and are to be preserved for the benefit of all.

Our government should recognize that ownership and control over Indigenous Land and resources could and should not only help to solve the massive social and economic problems South Africans and Indigenous First Nation faces, but also that a certain degree of self-administration and control over land and resources are essential to ensure the survival of Indigenous First Nation and the entire South African. Our government only recognized a moral, not a legal, obligation to realize and protect our Indigenous Land Rights. Consequently, our governments remains hesitant in addressing our Indigenous First Nation Status claim. Hopefully it will changed with the emergence of the Modern Aboriginal Title Doctrine internationally, which will find its final expression in the South African society. Assist IFNASA in aiding the government find their intelligence. Help stop the Failed Justice meted against the Indigenous First Nation of South Africa.

Objections
Indigenous First Nation Reject the Bill Out-right because:
o The content, context and the process was inconsistent with the administration of a justice, while being unsound and ill-conceived.
o The TKSLB does not Recognize the Coloured Identity Morph (transform) and the conscious annihilation project by the Colonial rule, the Apartheid regime and the current marginalization of the KhoiSan-Coloured Nation under the protection of a purported world class constitution.
o The Bill rejects the Land Lost and Identity, Language Destruction of the Indigenous First Nation of South Africa by colonization and apartheid.
o The TKSLB does not provide empirical evidence of why the KhoiSan cannot be afforded First Nation Status.
o The TKSLB does not make mention of Constitutional Amendments to accommodate the KhoiSan.

Ultimately, by focusing on customary law discourse, the duality between tradition and modernity, and how it is managed, may, moreover, be uncovered during the hearings. We require this focus because of a continual dialectic (or conflict) between Indigenous First Nation doctrine, Traditional Title, concepts covering Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge and Customs, and modern life conditions.

These discussions on Indigenous and Tradition titles need constant renewal and reinvention by the Indigenous people themselves and engage government with the results. We plead with the government to develop a comprehensive or all-embracing methodology on all indigenous submissions. In this way the government could represent part of modernity, as they find new innovative ways to address their fears regarding First Nation Status and or Sovereignty. Our intention is not to reduce or extinguish the firm handle government should hold on the leadership of the country, instead, they should first allow us to study Aboriginal Title elsewhere. We believe that the focus on indigenous customary law and indigenous land rights discourse will contribute to unfolding and explaining the dynamic force of customs and traditions.

We have a collective responsibility to bring the new world we all envisage. Let us Stop the Failed Justice!
Our Questions
o We request that Deputy Minister Obed Bapela explain his comments and assumptions on the unsustainability of a KhoiSan First Nation claim?
o What are his assertions based in?
o Does the Deputy Minister have empirical evidence to support his eccentric interpretations?
o Why does the South African government persist in ignoring the glaring deficiencies or deficits within the Bill content and context?
o Why didn’t the department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) started the conversation of Identity and the Bill recognition amongst Coloured people?
o Would Cogta consider National Dialogues of Coloured people to first understand their indigenous culture and heritage discourse so that they can meaningfully participate in the hearings?
We believe that there is still an opportunity take hands and take a new direction as the collective Nation.
Regards
Yvette Mc Donald
IFNASA Springbok Co-ordinator
Indigenous First Nation South Africa Mass Movement (IFNASA MM)
+27 (0) 78 042 1988

Greetings Friends,

Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa (IFNASA) is shocked by the “Tricks” that continue to be synonymous with the department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta)!

Let provide context or better perspective!

There is a piece of law that aims to recognize the so called Coloureds, the Seed of the Khoi-San within the law. It is public knowledge that our people were left out-side all major negotiations and development in the country. We are told to accept the Bill as it will offer the Khoi-San Statutory Recognition. Some say it is “Better” then having nothing. What does “Better” mean? All this happens without properly offering “All” the so called Coloureds the opportunity to “First” find out if they are part of the Khoi-San. The truth is, the majority of Coloureds don’t know anything about their Heritage or Culture and Cogta is now ensuring that they “Never” find out! Question is why? Why is Cogta in such a “Rush” to get the Bill passed before May 2017? Why have they postponed the meetings and instituted new meeting dates unilaterally without proper consultations or notice? What are the motives and intentions of the Bill hearing “Fast-tract”? Who stands to gain if the Bill is past before the end of May 2017? What will we as the so called Coloureds Loose if this Bill is past without satisfactorily Consultation?

The government knows full well that the Khoi-San (Boesman, Khoikhoi, Nama, Korana and Griqua’s) were a Sovereign Nation before the British Crown Annexed the KhoiSan Land and gave our fore-fathers the label Coloureds. We have prove to this Claim! The reason why they gave us the label, was to ensure that that we “Never Remember” that we have a link to the Hottentot, Khoikhoi or Boesman’s as we are called. If we remain with the Coloured label, we have “No Claim” to the Land South Africa. Why is the Land so Important? Why is everybody shouting for Land? Why are Coloureds not laying Claim to Land? The reason why Land is important, is because Land comes with one’s Identity, Culture, Heritage and Resources worth much more than “Property”. Everyone who shout that this is their Land understands it and its time that we as Coloureds wake-up and ask, what about our Land? The Land that belonged to the Boesman’s before Black Africans and Europeans came to the the shores of South Africa? Who did they find here?

The department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs understand this very well and was instructed by the “Power’s that be” to quickly pass the law. Once the Law is passed, the Khoi-San descendants “Cannot” Claim South Africa as their Ancestral Land and will be subject to the Law. IFNASA want you to understand that the “Only” people who will benefit from the Recognition by this piece of legislation will be the few Chiefs and administrators who are currently sitting at the table with government and negotiating on “Our” behalf, but they “Alone” will reap the benefits. Which means, we will have “No” Land to Claim. All the Gold, Diamonds, Platinum, Iron Ore and other Minerals will fall in the hands of the government and we will “Never” see Economic Liberation or Cultural Freedom. They are fast-tracking because they know that IFNASA is on their tails and we will Stop at nothing to expose the “Deception, Lies and Theft” that is being perpetrated in the name of Freedom and Democracy. Coloured-KhoiSan Nation, these meetings are a Scam. Please go to the meetings and ask the right questions. Write down what they tell you and the name and surname of the officials who answer you. Ask the questions we ask in this message, you will be Shocked with the answers. Inbox us if you are not certain about the Bill and its implications, we will gladly assist.

We calling on “All Coloured-KhoiSan” people to go to the hearings in your province and “Reject the Bill”! Respect those with different views! But make it clear, this Bill is a Scam!!! This Bill “Will Steal the Land” your fore-fathers left you! The time has come for the Coloureds and All Sober thinking South Africans to stand Together. This call is “Not” a call against our fellow Indigenous Africans or Former European Brothers and Sisters. No, its a call “Against the Theft” of All our Indigenous Title and Entitlement to the Land called South Africa. We must All dislodge the continuation of Indigenous African Marginalization and Economic Oppression! Let us Stand together and “Reject the Segregation” the Bill wants to entrench! South Africa, help the Khoi-San-Coloured Nation in their Liberation! In so doing, you will help all of us to prosper. The Bill will further Divide us! Help us as we call on the President of South Africa to institute a “National Inquiry” in to the continuation of All our people’s Economic Slaughter. Jobs are lost at an alarming rate. More than 10 Million South African owes money to some institution! This evil must Stop Now!!!  This plight is a Collective one.  One South African Nation! One Economic Liberation!

 

by Anthony Phillip Williams

The Coloureds so labeled by Europeans who forced the Natives of South Africa, sometimes called Hottentots, Boesman or Khoikhoi into what is called “Forced Assimilation” never referred to themselves as a Nation. I could only speculate why?  Until now. The Coloured label is not only a fabrication of our true identity, it equally continues to reduce and shrink us to what I want to call “Nothingness or Nonexistence”.

What is a Sovereign Nation? It is understood that a “Sovereign Nation” as the case with a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other Power or State. So, the question was posed to me this weekend: “Are you saying that the KhoiSan – their children (seed) so-labeled Coloureds are a Sovereign Nation? Are you advancing that the so-labeled Coloureds are Not Subjected to any Power?” Well, it depends on whether you see the Coloureds as the seed of the KhoiSan? What does the diary of Jan Van Riebeeck say? What did the Special Rapporteur Professor Rodolfo Stravenhagen of the United Nations found in 2005 when he advice the South African government to remove the term Coloured from the Indigenous First Nation? When you argue with me concerning who we are, please interrogate various academic offerings and scientific proof before you go on an emotional ranting. Let’s provide some context.

There is currently a Bill that seeks to recognize the Indigenous First Nation, running a mock within the cultural corridors and the sense of indecision and perplexity amongst all Indigenous First Nation and Traditional or Tribal authorities are equally in midpoint. For the Indigenous First Nation or KhoiSan, it’s perplexing because the Bill wants to cheat us from our First Nation Status and ultimately our Land. The Traditional Leaders (meaning the Nguni’s or the Bantus’ who came to South Africa over one thousand five-hundred years ago is frantically fighting the Bill because the recognition to the Indigenous First Nation (or the Coloureds) will ultimately see their (Nguni’s) Land claims disputed and rejected. That is at the heart of the circus. The department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) is in complete hysteria. Today was supposed to be the first day of public hearings and for some unknown reason to us; it’s been halted in our favor. The God of Righteousness, who is God over all of us, is exposing the dishonesty and duplicity our people are living with for more than five hundred years now.

The doctrine and the need to understand just what “Sovereignty”  truly means and the interpretation thereof leaves academics and the legal minds in South Africa mystified and bewildered. A lawyer asked me this pass Saturday if we want to change the entire South African Constitution and my answer was and is a resounding yes. He was referring to the court case that we as IFNASA lodged with the Constitutional Court, Case number 229/16. The title or term Sovereignty is a complex juggernaut not only for our  legal minds but more so for the Con Court and the ethical issues involving how 11 Judges who represents eleven ethnic groups and none of them “Directly Represents” the express interest of the First Aboriginal Natives of South Africa, makes for fascinating and attractive discourse. It is a conundrum and poser of unthinkable proportions.

In order for you to understand why we as IFNASA reject the Bill, we have to make comparative studies to arrive at the correct answer. Let’s refer you to: “Aboriginal Title and Indigenous Peoples, Edited by Louis A. Knafla and Haijo Westra, The University of British Columbia. Numerous voices within the Coloured Liberation space start their argument at the wrong level. If you consider what I said regarding the Forced Assimilation (absorption) of the Indigenous First Nation (let’s just call us Boesman’s, a well know terminology amongst us), for who it was mandatory or compulsory to take on the Coloured label, you must agree with me that we were always a Sovereign Nation before colonization.

What are we as IFNASA postulating regarding this iniquitous Bill? We must consider the following when we finally do go to the Bill hearings:

• Pre-dominantly, ethnic groups perceive Sovereignty to mean the “Capacity” to administer their own affairs and subsist as nations that are acknowledged as having power over their own providence. It means to live imaginative and unencumbered by the repression of an outside power shaping and re-determining our own fortunes.

 

• Regrettably, this has been the nature of the relationship between the Colonial powers, the Apartheid regime and now hedged by the South African Democratic State.

 

• The South African government in the character of the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs and Rural Development, Mr. Mcebisi Skwatsha emphatically stated at Birchwood Hotel late last year that we Coloureds, the seed of Krotoa and Dawid Kruiper will “Not” get First Nation Status. That’s what the Bill says too. So, for the national government, Sovereignty will never happen and it simply means that we as the First Inhabitants of Southern Africa will remain “a Reliant Nations” that exist at the mercy of the state. Which means our kids will remain in prisons, on the street and dysfunctional until and unless we make a three hundred and sixty degree turn. Sovereignty remains an elusive and opaque dream that government will ensure we never enjoy as the Independent First Nations, but one thing is certain, the history books cannot lie concerning our identity.

 

So, why would our Leaders continue to negotiate on behalf of our people with half-baked and burnt offerings? How long will the disconnect to our Aboriginal Sovereignty Status evade us? You be the judge. I know for certain, The Coloureds were always a Sovereign Nation and they are undoubtedly coming out to lay claim to their “Real Identity”.

Revolutionary Greetings,

Fellow Activist and Friends of Indigenous First Nation, the IFNASA Board has had a ground breaking and exciting meeting last night. The details will be made available as soon as the Secretary is done finalizing the minutes.

The Board is clear, that we do not subscribe to any form of racism or racist slurs against any other nation, clan or group.  We will never support any attacks against Nguni or former European descendants. We believe in Co-existence.

Having said that, IFNASA will Not be Apologetic in-terms of speaking against the Injustice  and Marginalization the Khoi-San-Coloured Nation continue to experience under a democratic dispensation. The “Silence” concerning the continued suppression in full view of the majority within the country make them complicit. We are aware that there are millions of South Africans and people around the world who support our cause, because they know the Truth concerning our (Coloured) Forced Assimilation (Amorphous Identity) and Brutality against our person. We are the Indigenous First Nation of South and Southern Africa. We are one of the Voices within our community who advance the Full Liberation of the Indigenous First Nation and the Full Liberation of all other South Africans.

Herewith high-level Updates:

• IFNASA is Officially Registered as a Public Benefit Organization (PBO) with the South African Receiver of Revenue (SARS) with a Tax Number. The  PBO Number is to follow and will be made available.
• The Board has approved the Indigenous First Nation South Africa Mass Movement.
• Membership will be levied at minimum R20.00 per person per month for individuals.
• The fee for organizations will be R200.00 pm.
• The fee for Corporate will be levied at R10 000.00 pm. The benefits will be discussed on an individual basis, which means we will curtail our offering as per our agreements with the organization or corporate.
• A number of fund raising initiatives were discussed and will become available as soon as the Treasury Team concluded on the details.
• For all the Leaders who are burning to be part of the action, Please be patient, there will a number of committees and sub-committees established because the work load is quite huge.
• All ideas and contributions are welcome and should be forwarded to the admin on indigenousfirsnationadvocacy@gmail.com. You should not be concerned that your contribution will dis-appear with-out recognition. IFNASA will credit every contribution to the person so that history is correctly captured.
• If your province wants us to Launch an IFNASA platform, they should urgently contact us for such.
• We will soon give you an update on the Con Court Case #229/16.

NB:Remember, Gauteng will host us tomorrow at number 6A Goldman Street in Florida, Johannesburg from 8:30 am to 16:30. Please call on Chief Glen Taaibosch 0836110432 for more info. We will be discussing the Con Court Case and the Traditional KhoiSan Leadership Bill amongst other. Bishop Clyde Ramalaine will deliver a Keynote message. Anthony Phillip Williams and Leonard Martin will lead you through the Court Case and provide a historical context on “Who the Coloureds are in relation to the KhoiSan”. Don’t miss this meeting! RSVP Please…. You must feel free to bring something to drink or eat.

Leadership, your participation is not only critical but of great significant value too. Lets keep the KhoiSan Liberation Fire Burning. We invite all South Africans and people around the world in assisting us Liberate South Africa totally.

#229/16          #KHOISANLIBERATESA

INDIGENOUS FIRST NATION ADVOCACY SOUTH AFRICA (IFNASA)

PRESS STATEMENT 30th SEPTEMBER 2016

Memory is the Indigenous First Nation Defense

Welcome to Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa (IFNASA). The goals of the Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa (IFNASA) ADVOCACY GROUP is to:  Educate so-called Coloured People that they are not just the production of white and black people, a narrative they’ve been fed with all their lives.  Taking up all the legal and related issues facing the Indigenous First Nation labelled Coloured’s and bring real solutions in real time. (Occupy the Leadership Vacuum left unattended)  Creating a credible Consultation Advocacy Platform (National and Inter-national) where substantive issues will be discussed and resolved. Our focus today is on institutional “Memory”.

This is the Indigenous First Nation Defence, our response to a relentless onslaught on an uninformed so-labelled Coloured Nation. Indeed, the word Memory has become synonymous with Dr. Donato Francisco Mattera, better known as Don Mattera, acclaimed author, poet and struggle stalwart. We acquired the caption of this press statement from Mattera’s “Memory is a Weapon”. It is interesting how Mattera memories speak about the trauma he experienced when he first went before the Classification Board, which would decide which group he belonged to, “a Hotnot or an Italian”: “There was…no blood tests, no scrutiny. I was the Italian’s son, and the last-born of the family. If the Boers believed I was my grandpa’s son, I was not going to be the one to shatter that belief. My number was 331-591697C; the ‘C’ stood for ‘Coloured’ but the birth certificate read ‘Mixed’ in the column denoting race. It was the first I knew of a race called ‘Mixed’. Mixed, though, was far better than native, and being called ‘K’, as many reclassified Coloured’s were to discover” says Matera. Heart wrenching stories, filled with biting humiliation and anguish, made newspaper headlines daily in the late fifties. Some victims of the reclassification trauma chose suicide to bail them out of their absurd misery. Wholesome and stable families were shattered overnight, as brothers, sisters, sons and daughters were ripped apart by the cruel laws of race separation. Relentless pass raids netted in hundreds of ‘borderline’ cases; those bordering between African and Coloured, not between white and Coloured.” (pp.25).

South Africa’s formal transition from apartheid to a constitutional democracy notwithstanding, race continues to be salient in the social and political life of South Africans. This claimed democracy is purely a Charade and is Masquerading as ‘mutual sense’, while the Coloured Nation relegation and humiliation has been normalised. As is typical of the idea of race, these socially constructed categories present themselves as a historical references to inherent difference ostensibly based on external appearance and ancestral lineage. While legalised racial discrimination no longer exists in South Africa, race continues to play an influential role in social and political life insofar as people continue to use apartheid-manufactured racial categories to identify themselves and others. The number of people who identify as KhoiSan has surged in post-apartheid South Africa. Khoi and San (Coloured) communities have formed their own advocacy organizations to ensure land and resource rights and have partnered with international “First Peoples” groups to further their aims.

The extent to which KhoiSan issues have been acknowledged in the new South African political and cultural agenda can be seen in the incorporation of San rock art and the /Xam language in the new national coat of arms, the 1996 Miscast exhibit at the National Gallery in Cape Town, and the 1999 land claim finding that returned sixty-five thousand hectares of land in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park to the dispersed Khomani San who had been evicted on December 16, 2007, a memorial commemorating the major conflicts that shaped South Africa’s history called S’khumbuto (or place of remembrance in siSwati) opened to the South African public as part of the national Freedom Park. Aside from the occasional throwaway polemical reference to the destruction of South Africa’s San and Khoe population as genocide — the best-known example occurring in former South African president Thabo Mbeki’s 1996 – ‘I am an African’ speech: The relevant part of the speech delivered to the Constitutional Assembly at the adoption of the South African Constitution on 8 May 1996 reads as follows; “I owe my being to the Khoi and the San whose desolate souls haunt the great expanses of the beautiful Cape — they who fell victim to the most merciless genocide our native land has ever seen, they who were the first to lose their lives in the struggle to defend our freedom and dependence [sic] and they who, as a people, perished in the result.” (For the full text of the speech, see Mbeki (1996). This matter has little presence in South African public life. Mr. Mbeki’s speech, however, was done in passing (some argue) — sometimes almost inadvertently — and no one has ever properly analysed this case specifically as one of genocide.

Our submission seeks to amplify wakefulness of the cataclysmic impact of colonial conquest on the hunter-gatherer societies of the South Africa. Secondly, drawing on the accepted wisdom of activists and academic insights of the field of genocide studies, we make the case that the annihilation of the South African Boesman and Khoen societies constitutes genocide in terms of the relatively stringent formulation. South Africa and the World have been waiting for this moment in history, because the decolonization project did not even start with dismantling the unjust laws and lawmaking in South Africa, the status quo remains stubbornly intact. Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa (IFNASA) resolutely made a date with justice in order to eliminate the so-labelled Coloureds fabricated identity so that we can lead them towards their Destiny. The offspring of Krotoa and Sarah Baartman, the KhoiSan’s ancestors will “Refuse to celebrate Heritage Day in Bondage!”

The concocted myth or miscegenation propaganda in relation to the so-labelled Coloureds will be dealt a decisive blow, infect our actions will ultimately extinguish the claptrap we are confined to, now more than 500 years. The notion that so-labelled Coloureds are purely the product of white and black people, will be exposed for the felonious or delinquent prominence that it holds. IFNASA has consistently emphasized the need for full, effective and honest participation with the indigenous first peoples of South Africa, without delight. The protection of the rights of indigenous peoples should be a priority for the government, which must make decisive decisions and recommendations of how they are going to negotiate a settlement on the land and its resources, while implementing the UN 2005 report recommendations.

The former UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, Professor Rodolfo Stravenhagen recommended in his 2005 report that all stigmatization that the Khoi-San could experience as a result of being labelled Coloured, should be removed. He further recommended that the restitution of land claims by indigenous communities not be limited to the cut-off date of 1913; plus the launching of a systematic land needs and land rights study of indigenous communities; and the acceleration of the land restitution process.’ We submitted a notice of motion and founding affidavit in the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the 23rd September 2016 for direct access, so that we can deal with our community’s fundamental Human Rights violation under the careful watch of a world distinguished constitution, a democratic government, struggle paragons who hold exceptionally decorated decorum, including the apex Human Rights Commission of South Africa. Case Number 229/16 will be on everyone’s lips will define and refine South Africa forever. The submission has the objective of getting South Africa and its leaders to account for the uninterrupted colonial and apartheid lawmaking and preservation of illicit laws.

We served notice on the President, parliament, national assembly, national council of provinces, the cabinet, ministers of justice, arts and culture, land affairs, cooperative governance, including the Human Rights Commission, Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Commission and Pan South African Language Board for their failure to address the KhoiSan Coloured amorphous identity, land dispossession, the Traditional and Khoi-San Bill and racist notion of “Africans in Particular”. Together with the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in SA and the African charter, we must exert pressure on the government to ratify ILO Convention 169. Its time South Africa hear the truth. We conclude with Mattera’s: “Memory is a weapon,” he tells us, “I know deep down inside of me, in that place where laws and guns cannot reach nor jackboots trample, that there had been no defeat. In another day, another time, we would emerge to reclaim our dignity and our land. It was only a matter of time and Sophiatown (South Africa) would be reborn” (p.152).

IFNASA MEDIA