The ‘Khoi-San’ identity
This is the third delivery in a series by Sydney Opperman in which he sheds light on the origins and names of the country's indigenous (first) nation.
Why did our own "intellectuals" fail to investigate their own ancestry instead of parroting political opportunists and by doing so, gave up our ancestral names and replace them with the names of German intellectual fabrication, namely Khoi, Khoe, Khoikhoi and Khoisan? These "names" were fabricated for ideologically motivated consumption and can be traced no further back than 1928 (for Khoisan) and 1881 (for Khoi), wiping out hundreds of years of documentation and thousands of years of history! These names are linguistically and culturally confusing.
I have a serious problem with khoin/khoen (people) who ask me if I am a khoi/khoe (person or human being). The latest trend is to refer to some members of a family as "bruinmense" and others of the same family as "Khoisan". 'Divide and rule' has been one of the curses in our country! Luckily there is a strong movement away from using the term "san" for bushman.
The 'Khoi-San' identity
The "identity issue" in regard to us as the indigenous people is of utmost importance. Not only as it pertains to our past, but more so as it pertains to our future and our inheritance, especially in terms of the land ownership debate.
The following "descriptive names" were
used by the presenters at the National Khoisan Consultative Conference held in Oudtshoorn during 2001:
'Khoisan' - Dr Willa Boesak
'Khoi-San' - Dr George Brink 'Khoekhoe', 'Khoisan', 'Khoe-mense', Khoi - Chief Basil Coetzee
'Khoi/San'; 'Khoisan' - Keyan Tomaselli 'Khoisan' - Dr Janette Deacon
'Khoisan' - Prof Bredekamp
'Khoisan' - Dr William Langeveld 'Khoisan' - Cecil le Fleur
'KHOI-SAN' - Anthony le Fleur
What was most confusing is the different ways in which the 'name' was spelled.
'Khoisan', for example, speaks of one people group wherein 'Khoi' is the most prominent part and 'san' of less significance, it seems. The late Reverend Mario Mahongo of the 'San Council' on another occasion objected to this blatant 'discrimination' against his people group. San must be written with a capital 'S', he said.
In 'Khoi/San', it seems that there is no difference and that the words could easily be used interchangeably.
In 'Khoi-San' it seems to mean that they are different people groups (which they are if we accept the terminology for the sake of explanation) with 'Khoi' as the leading and older group.
No one will refer to the late Winnie as Mandela-Madikizela because she was first a Madikizela before she became a Mandela.
For the same reason, it is chronologically nonsensical to use the term 'Khoi-San' because the so-called 'San' (a term which is rejected by the very people it aims to describe) is a much older group than the socalled 'Khoi'.
Not even the Institute of Historical Research at the University of the Western Cape noticed or cared (no mention of the differences during the conference) about the discrepancies in the different forms presented at the "Consultative Conference".
'Khoisan' is nothing but a thumb-sucked term invented by a German, Leonhard Schultze, in 1928 (Zur kenntnis des Körpers der Hottentotten und Buschmänner (Zoologische und Anthropologische Ergebnisse einer Forschungreise in Westlichen und Zentralen Sudafrika)).
Isaac Schapera popularised this concoction in his book, The Khoisan Peoples of South Africa: Bushmen and Hottentots (1930).
According to D Olderogge (Migrations and Ethnic and Linguistic Differentiation. General History of Africa. Methodology and African Prehistory), "neither anthropologists nor linguists can provide sufficient grounds for assuming the existence of a 'Khoisan' group. Hence, this term is significantly problematic".
Sydney Opperman, sydneyopperman@ gmail.com, 14 Lynx Street, Pacaltsdorp, 083 378 4237