Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa


DISPELLING THE BOGUS HISTORY: Just who were the ‘First People’ – the /Xam of /Xam-ka and who all were those we call the Khoena or Khoi & Xhosa – and are the latter related? Posted on September 8, 2017

by Patric Tariq Mellet


I have become very tired – sick and tired in fact – by the succession of false histories concerning who the ‘FIRST PEOPLE’ of the Cape were, and also the misrepresentation of the Xhosa as foreign alien blacks who invaded the Cape, and indeed blanket claims that the ‘Coloured’ people are the Khoena or Khoi and therefore we are the ‘First People’ who demand control of this land.

Much of this is based on false Apartheid and Colonialist history that has unfortunately been embraced by a significant number of our people along with much racism and bigotry.



Having said this I will go on to explain why I say it, but I first want to state that I do believe that there are genuine Cape Khoena or Khoi communities, and when revived memory and organisational forms are done in a proper manner with due regard to the real history and heritage of the Khoena, then I fully support such initiatives. I believe that there is a place for Khoena revivalism of this sort but it certainly is not a solution or appropriate way for all to follow…. And I say this with due respect. Here I note that revival of tribalism as a way forward can and should be separated from reviving heritage and memory and there are many variants of ways in which this can be done.

In some parts of the three Capes there are strong grounds for a revived association of Khoena people and there are serious claims to be considered soberly in terms of restorative justice. Here in particular the recognition of Revivalist Cape Khoena groups as among the five most marginalised Indigene groups who are discriminated against in South Africa must be recognised. However in other parts of South Africa – the Cape Peninsula in particular only a very small minority have Cape Khoena roots and even then it is but part of much stronger roots relating to slavery and various other migrations of people of colour. I have carefully studied the 1865 census and the 1891 which were the most reliable until 1904. In the 1904 census 85, 892 are identified as Cape Damara, Nama, Korana and Cape ‘Hottentot’ (+/- 60 000) as distinct from Coloured/Mixed numbering 279, 662. After the Union of SA was established and had its first census there was only one category now called ‘Coloured/mixed’ numbering 454,959. Thus as a rule of thumb we can extrapolate that just over a million of today’s “Coloured” population have a claim on Cape Khoena ancestry and around a further 400 000 could have mainly Nama, as well as some Damara and Korana ancestry. If we interrogate the figures of the locations of the Cape Khoena of that time a very negligible percentage were to be found from Koeberg to the so-called Hottentot Holland Mountains and across to Cape Point. Over 91% of persons of colour in this area had other historical roots, which I describe as Camissa.

Now to understand firstly who the only ‘FIRST PEOPLE’ of the Cape can be said to be, we have to go a long way back in history to understand this. Through coming to a proper understand of who the /Xam-ka were, we will also come to an understanding of how they were first displaced from the coastal areas of the Eastern Cape and the Western Cape by the first migrants – the Cape Khoena pastoralists from the Northwest and their earliest cousins the first //Kosa ancestors (not to be confused with those called Xhosa today). We will also need to look at the much later entry of the Nguni into the Eastern Cape and what truly unfolded there. To be able to understand this we will have to look at who the Nguni were, because there is a lot of confusion about this because of the false Colonial narratives unfortunately embraced by a number of peddlers of psuedo-history. Some of these con-artists cannot tell the difference between Homo Sapiens and Archaic Humans when it comes to archaeological diggings, of which there are a number of sites in South Africa, which are treasure troves that shed light on human evolution.

All of these matters pertain to ancient PRE-COLONIAL HISTORY. There is also a fascinating history between 100 BC and 1300 AD around the ‘Peopling of South Africa, with the coming together of hunters, herders, herder-farmers and farmers in the Limpopo.  From 1300 to 1652 a further fascinating history emerges as segmentation and differentiation spreads among South African indigenes. Thereafter another history begins with colonialism and I have covered this elsewhere in explaining how the Colonists over 176 years involving 15 wars first forcibly removed or pacified the Cape Khoena and then committed genocide on the /Xam-ka ‘First People’ and then moved on in the overlapping 100 years wars against the amaGcaleka and amaRharhabe Xhosa and against the abeThembu and those others referred to as Nguni tribes right through to Pondoland.

Let me start with first explaining that the earliest Homo Sapiens emerged along East Africa around 250 000 years ago, and around 90 000 to 130 000 years ago the ‘real ‘First People’ – Homo Sapiens moved out of East Africa to populate the world and by 70 000 years ago hundreds of small groups of Homo Sapiens were dotted all over Southern Africa, not just South Africa. These and their differences have been genetically mapped with what is called SA dna (Southern African dna) which some refer to by using the anthropological and linguistic terms which is not quite accurate – San or Khoisan dna.

By 40 000 years ago half of these ‘First People’ with as much diversity in way of life as they were in number, had died out. By 20 000 years ago they had again reduced considerably, but hundreds of micro-communities which European anthropologists labelled as San were scattered from the tip of Africa to Tanzania, Zambia and Angola. Only in the very broadest sense can these diverse peoples be regarded as a broad human family of people that anthropologists, linguists and geneticists labelled as San. They commonly engaged in hunting and gathering for subsistence, but as herding entered the Zambezi basin and, to the south, at the Shashe-Limpopo basin, a new southern African herding population emerged whom European anthropologists in the 20th century would refer to as the Khoi. These in turn migrated all over South Africa.

Over 20 000 years, distinctive social identities developed to which archaeologists and anthropologists gave the broad label SAN. But with the huge distances between these different groups each had distinctive names and cultures of their own. Down in the Eastern Cape, Western Cape and Central Cape the descendants of the first homo-sapiens who we can call ‘FIRST PEOPLE’ were the /Xam and and !Ga !ne and they were far removed from the Tshua and #Hõā San tribes on the Northwestern Kalahari and Limpopo…. As much so as the Scots, Irish, English and French. The Kohena were not related to the Cape San but were part descended from the Tshua people and the herder descendents from East Africa but also with some other admixture who some refer to as Bantu. Indeed very little distinction would have existed between the earliest micro-communities of herders and farmers who made their way into the Eastern Cape around 650 AD. Archaeologists have not found any evidence of herder peoples before that time in the Eastern Cape and certainly not before 1050 AD in the Western Cape. Archaeological finds of Archaic Human hunter-gatherers.

Here it is important that we stop a moment to look at the evolution of humanity as a number of the pseudo-history peddlers do not understand the findings at South African archaeological digs and confuse these with proof of later human developments.

Homo or Human is the genus that encompasses different progressions towards modern humans or Homo Sapiens. This is basic to archaeological mapping.  Several extinct species are closely related and ancestral to modern humans but are not Homo Sapiens – the most notable being  Homo Erectus. The human genus is shown to have emerged with the appearance of Homo Habilis, just more than two million years ago. This clearly is not modern humans, let alone the San, as some lacking understanding of archaeology attempt to project. Even for non-archaeologists like myself this is considered basic general knowledge. Homo Erectus appeared about two million years ago and, in several early migrations, it spread throughout Africa (Homo Ergaster) and Eurasia.

The latter was likely the first Archaic Human species to live in a hunter-gatherer society and to control fire.  An adaptive and successful species, Homo Erectus persisted for more than a million years. About  500 000 years ago Homo Erectus  gradually diverged into new species, most notably Homo Heidelbergensis. It is from this species that both Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis are considered to have derived.

Homo Sapiens which are also referred to as anatomically modern humans   years ago and it is generally agreed that this occurred in Eastern Africa while Homo Neanderthalensis emerged at around the same time in Europe and Western Asia.

It is generally argued that around 130 000 years ago (possibly longer) that Homo Sapiens dispersed from Africa in several waves, Those who dispersed southwards were said to have done so in a gradual drift starting 90 000 to 70 000 years ago. Both in Africa and Eurasia, Homo Sapiens met with and interbred with Archaic Humans (Non Homo Sapiens). The later only died out around 40 000 years ago, with some exceptions being those hybrid species dying out as late as 12,000 years ago.

Now the uninformed read a newspaper article about diggings at Mossel Bay and Blombos Caves and elsewhere where amazing archaeological finds have been made and the erroneously think that all of the findings relating to the Homo genus are Homo Sapien and then jump thousands of years ahead and incorrectly suggest that these findings are of San or the Khoi.

As with the false assumptions made about the path to the emergence of Homo sapiens and the long path from that point to the emergence of San societies and the very much later emergence of Khoi herder societies, there is also many erroneous assumptions that  Archaic Humans did not display make tools etc. The evolution of behaviours is a much debateable subject with much less exactitudes. This subject spans the early stone-age which lasted for around 3.4 million years  and ended in different places between 9000 BC and 2000 BC as the making of metal and metal implements was born. The stone age is divided into early, middle and late stages and likewise with the metal ages.

The caves of the Southern Cape contains Middle Stone Age deposits, and technological insights dated between 70 000 years ago and 100 000 years ago.  This has to be understood in the evolutionary context explained. But it also at different layers expose a Late Stone Age sequence dated between 300 to 2000 years ago.  One has to look at these two periods with very different eyes and the Homo genus of these different periods also require different ways of reading the past. We also have to note that these sites and no other sites have yielded evidence of presence of Khoi Herders in the last thousand years and Archaelogists have been hunting for such evidence for a long time. It is a dead giveaway of pseudo-historians imbued with modern day crackpot ethno-nationist ideas to misrepresent archaeological findings and make statements like “our ancestors were here for hundreds of thousands of years”. Much of what has been discussed here is what we can call pre-history. So back to the focus on history.

The Khoena or Khoi as a distinct people, first emerged 2100 years ago in the Northwestern Kalahari and Limpopo. They separated from the ancestors of the Tshua and #Hõā (distinct San peoples of the area), when pastoral people (herders), descended over 1000 years from East Africa, crossed the Limpopo and brought sheep and a new way of living into the region. Geneticists have also found that the ancestors of these people had also mixed with Nilotic peoples (North Africans from the Nile) who were the ones who introduced sheep to the East Africans. Sheep originate in the Middle East and were conduited down the Nile either through Southward migration from the Middle East or by trading links with the Nilotic people. Some evidence such as the existence of the Lembe with their customs and dna suggests the possibility too of another link with South Africa, but that is another story.

Sheep pastoralism and milk drinking cultures trace along very specific routes and interface with South Africa parallel to the emergence of Khoena people. It is these Khoena or Khoi people who became migrants to the Cape, to join the /Xam ‘First People’ who had been there ever since evolving from the first Homo Sapiens in the area. Indeed the San also have probable linkages with hybrid humans who existed due to inter-relations between Archaic humans and modern humans.

This Limpopo gateway into South Africa tells us a lot about pre-colonial times as it is from here that various people migrated across the Limpopo to KZN and also down to the Gariep River and from there into the Eastern and Western Cape, with a lesser used route also down the West Coast. At this gateway the San of that area and the new arrivals both from East Africa and Bantu from the Great Lakes regions mixed and the Khoena emerged in three formations. One remained around what would become the Kingdom of Mapangubwe, another, moved westwards and southerly into Botswana and Namibia, while others moved Eastwards right through to KZN. There were also those that moved Southwards to the Gariep and then beyond to the Eastern Cape; and finally into the Western Cape by 1050 AD.

By 800AD a powerful African Kingdom developed along the Limpopo with its centre at Mapagubwe made up of a mix of San, Khoena, Bakoni and Bantu peoples.
The Mapangubwe Kingdom presided over by the Tshua San and Khoena Royalty who were held in great esteem by the mixed population of Kalahari Tshua, Khoena, Bakoni and Bantu peoples who all lived in accord. It was an advanced African civilisation of people who lived in stone walled towns, smelted and fashioned golden objects and who likely from evidence found, traded with the East African Coast, Arabs Indians and Chinese in the 10th century. Hundreds of these stone walled city ruins can be found all the way to Mozambique. Great Zimbabwe is just one of these. These people were multi-ethnic and were a combination of of hunter-rainmakers, herders, herder-farmers and farmer-metallurgists. They were also traders and it was from this trading tradition to which the Cape Khoi trace back to, that African trading traditions in the Western Cape (pre-European) evolved.

Further developments resulted in the emergence of the Kalanga peoples whose descendents can be found in the BaTswana, the Sotho, the abaThembu and among the early //Kosa as well as among the Koni civilisation of Mpumalanga. When the Bakoni travelled East into KZN there were another distinct San people, the //Xegwi or BaTwa in that region who were one of the foundation peoples of the new Nguni creation in Southern Africa made up of strands from BaKoni. Abatwa, Khoi and Tsonga. There was never an invasion of Nguni people. The Nguni was a new creation from around 400 AD in South Africa brought about by hunters, herders, herder-farmers and farmer-metallurgists.

Many of the //Xegwi were also assimilated into the Bakoni who themselves then assimilated with Kalanga and later with the Tsonga Bantu tribes who crossed into Northern KZN and indeed crossed too and from across the Limpopo. It is this mixed people who came to be called the Nguni – the Ndwandwe Kingdom and the Mthethwa Kingdom were the most powerful. In the late 18th and early 19th century a revolution took place in this region in which the small original Zulu tribe and Khumalo tribes played a huge role and a new modern national group, the Zulu emerged as a Kingdom.

Through this revolution of the early 19th century known as the Mfecane a number of Nguni tribes – the Ngwane, Qwabe, Hlubi, Bhaca, Bhele, Zizi, Xesibe and Mpondomise were pushed southwards. Only the Mpondo under King Faku, on the Southern borders of KZN, were able to withstand the Zulu forces now operating way out of their rear supply bases.

As a result the Mpondo, Mpondomise, Thembu and Bomvana put pressure on the mixed Cobuqua-Xhosa in the area north of the Kei River. So did other refugee groups who were a mix of Khoena and Sotho (Ngqosini) also fleeing the Mfecane from the surrounds of Mosheshwe’s mountain kingdom which also checked the Zulu advance. This takes us up to the time of Shaka’s death in 1828.

But long before then – some more than 1000 years previously, the Khoena who travelled down southwards from Limpopo and had settled alongside other San formations along the Gariep, and also move further down southwards through the Eastern Cape seaboard into the Western Cape right down into the Cape Peninsula by 1050 AD. Not long after them, probably as the Mapangubwe Kingdom flourished from 800AD there was a trickle of Bantu into the Eastern Cape alongside the Cobuqua. Historians suggest that there was little differentiating between these two groups. This was around 650 AD. They were people who were use to each other over a lengthy period. The original occupiers of the land, the /Xam named these people, the Xhosa. These people spoke a funny mix of Khoena and SiNtu language, and had adopted many of the religious and cultural traditions of the Khoena and San and were thoroughly inter-married with San and Khoena. They were initially also not a kingdom but rather just a small loose federation of clans.

When the Nguni drift occurred and when refugees started pressing down South much later, this pre-Nguni,”Xhosa-Khoena” mixed people came under a much stronger and more well organised Nguni influence both pre and during the the Mfecane. But already there were Khoena tribes further south all the way to the Cape Peninsula by this time.

The Khoena that migrated to the Cape had no direct genetic linkage to the /Xam. It is only in antiquity that there is a connection and that this connection is to the Tshua San. They were thus not indigenous to the area in the old-fashioned use of the term. In modern UN terminology indigenous is used much more broadly and thus Khoena are an Indigene people as much as all whose forebears are Africans on this continent are indigene. But the Khoena certainly are a marginalised Indigene people in South Africa who face discrimination still to this day. That is not the same as being the ‘First People’ in the older sense of the word indigene. The UN and AU and the SA government recognise the San, the Nama, the Korana, the Griqua and the Revivalist Cape Khoena as being  “Indigenous people who are marginalised and discriminated against”.

The Khoena pastoralists nudged out the /Xam and !ga !Ne hunter-gatherer ‘First People’ from their traditional hunting grounds and as pastoralists took dominance of the seaboard areas. The /Xam ‘First People’ were gradually pushed from their traditional lands over a 500 year period to the /Xam-ka area of the central Cape, so that by the time the European shipping started regularly pulling into bays along the coast, the Khoena in the Western Cape and the Xhosa-Khoena of the Eastern Cape were the indigene Africans whom they met.

In the region of the Zuurveld and down to the Gamtoos River the mixed Xhosa-Gonaqua tribe called the Gqunukwebe lived alongside other independent Gonaqua, Damasqua, Gamtoos and Hoengeyqua. The name Gqunukwebe is exactly the same as Gonaqua in a different dialect.

From the Zuurveld area, the following Khoena tribes who had taken over the /Xam lands in the past 500 years were in place at the time of the first European invasion of the Cape. The Gqunukwebe-Xhosa, (Gonaqua, Hoengeyqua, Damasqua,Gamtoos), Outeniqua, Attaqua, Hessequa, Chainouqua, Cochoqua, Chariguriqua, Goringhaiqua and the Gorachoqua. On the western seaboard there were also the Chariguriqua and the Nama. Later some hybrid clans would develop as the result of warfare. In addition to those tribes/clans who over time merged into the ever changing Gqunukhwebe, seven other Khoi tribes merged into the Xhosa confederation even earlier.

Drifters from the Cochoqua, Goringhaiqua, Gorachoqua and Chainouqua who changed their way of life and established a new economy servicing European shipping during the 52 years before Jan van Riebeeck were loosely referred to as the Goringhaicona of Camissa. (Goringhaicona meaning “our kin who have drifted away”).

The formation of  the Camissa traders was highly influenced by a number of them travelling abroad and back – long before van Riebeeck’s arrival. Two of the most prominent were Chief Xhore who visited London in 1613 with the English and Chief Autshumao who visited Java in 1631 with the English who assisted him to establish a servicing settlement. These two men were the real founders of the Port of Cape Town which serviced 1071 ships and over 200 000 European visitors before van Riebeeck. Visits ranged from 3 weeks to 9 months in duration. Without us fully understand the significance of this part of our pre-colonial history we can also never be able to navigate our future. It is in this Camissa experience of a new economy and mode of living among Indigenes and how this was crushed that our understanding of our past is greatly enhanced.

The Goringhaicona were not a tribe….. they were a paradigm shift….. a revolution, that was crushed. But that is a story that I have dealt with elsewhere.

The Khoena or Khoi were the first to encounter the Europeans on the shoreline frontier when their ships dropped anchor in search of meat, water, salt and repair materials. When the European settlers came to stay they were highly reliant on the advanced animal husbandry and pastoral skills of the Cape Khoena whose understanding of sustainable grazing, water conservation and insect-borne diseases was invaluable to the European greenhorn farmers. At the time of the first interactions with the Europeans, the Khoena were very successful livestock farmers with tens of thousands of head of sheep and cattle. Indeed the Khoena had introduced livestock to the Cape.

In the Central Cape mountainous area were the bulk of the /Xam and initially the Europeans steered clear of them. From the moment the VOC started a colony they consciously started a process of forced removals or ethnic cleansing of the Khoena communities from what became the Cape Colony and it took the 176 years – so fierce was the resistance. Those that would not be pacified were forced to flee to the Gariep or to join the amaXhosa resistance in the Eastern Cape.

The Cape Peninsula up to the Hottentots Holland Mountains, down through Paarl and the outskirts of Malmesbury to the West Coast, was by 1720, a virtual Khoena-free zone, so bad was the ethnocide implemented. By the 1865 census there were less than 8% of the 85 000 recorded Khoena (Hottentots) in the whole Colony, living in the Peninsula area. Over 90% of people of colour in this area were recorded as slave descendants and descendants of migrants of colour.

The largest concentrations of Khoena were recorded alongside some of the largest concentrations of Xhosa in the Eastern Cape or in the Northern Cape and the West Coast of the Western Cape and the Karoo and part of Hessequa. Smaller concentrations were in the Overberg.

By the late 1600s the Europeans first encountered the /Xam in warfare when some of the Peninsula Khoena refugees team up with these Cape San to resist the Dutch advance. Increased contact was made after the 1740s as the Europeans in their pushing the Khoena out of the Cape began to encounter more and more /Xam inland. But from the 1770s for 25 years the /Xam valiantly held their own against Dutch-Khoena Commandos. The Commandos were under Dutch leadership but about 60% of these Commandos were pacified Khoena and in this period is when the great genocide slaughter of the ‘First People’ /Xam was at its worst.

The Khoena in the Commandos were instructed to wipe out the adult /Xam. Only a few of the children were spared and taken prisoners and shared out to work on white farms alongside slaves and pacified Khoena. The Khoena Commandos were also allowed to take some of the girls as concubines. Both the European and Khoena Commandos favourite aberration was to cut off the breasts of /Xam women to make leather tobacco pouches.

Much of the 30 000 /Xam community were wiped out, with the survivors moving northward short of the Gariep. There by the mid-1800s the British, Nama, Orlams and the Griquas carried on massacring the /Xam. This is the real tragic story of a genocide with many role-players taking part but largely overseen by the Dutch VOC and the British. This genocide spread from the /Xam victims to wiping out many of the Gariep San too.

It is this fact that makes it painful for the collective surviving San peoples across Southern Africa, when Khoena descendant inappropriately use the term KhoiSan, an anthropological, archaeological and geneticist academic term coined by a German anthropologist in the 1930s. It is adding insult to injury. It also adds insult to injury for any group to assume the title ‘First People’ in the Cape because all were migrants who displaced the /Xam.

Let us now just go back again to the pre-colonial period to see a little bit more closely what occurred in the Eastern Cape with the Khoena. As already noted the earliest original pre-Nguni “Xhosa-Cobuqua” were the first already back as far as the 15th century, feeling some impacts of Mpondomise, Mpondo and Thembu engagement with the “Xhosa-Cobuqua” of the area above the Kei River. Gradually assimilation took place with some Nguni offshoots from the Thembus, Mpinga-Ngwevu, Mpondomise, and the Ntshilibe-Mfene-Vundle Sotho, as well as the Ntlane and Zangwa Mpondo , all joining the mix. This was not a sudden event as some postulate but a gradual drift and engagement long prior to the Mfecane. The Mfecane itself precipitated other impacts on the Xhosa.

A trickle became a greater flow when a game-changer occurred much later. The Nguni domination of the federation of the Xhosa-Cobuqua-Nguni clans began with a fratricidal battle between two royal brothers Cira and Tshawe. The heir to the throne, Cirwa, was defeated when Tshawe called on the Mpondomise to come to his assistance. This led to the initial Nguni domination.

But then Tshawe offered sanctuary to a number of Khoena clans and this again balanced the mix. Expediency had most accepting the new arrangement but those who did not voluntarily accept sanctuary under one Tshawe Kingdom were forced into the Kingdom.

But here we need to backtrack a bit. A mythology was created over time by the victors, that does not stand up to scrutiny. The storyline goes that Tshawe’s father was a great Chief called Nkosiyamntu. This seems more to be a storyline to give credibility to the suggestion of an older direct link to the northern Nguni, than what may factually be the case.  The problem is that there is nobody and no record to verify what the facts may be.

Many people have come up with concoctions about when to date the time of Tshawe and nobody has been able to do so credibly with any accuracy, and again we cannot put an exact date on the Birth of Tshawe and the conflict over succession. The best that one can do is to work backwards from the birth of Togu some time in the mid 1660s to mid 1670s given that the death of  his son Tshiwo kaNgconde was in 1702. He was succeeded by Mdange kaNgconde,  and he was succeeded by Phalo kaTshiwo (king from 1736 – 1775).

Thus if Ngconde kaTogu lets say was born in 1670, then his father Skhomo could have been born between 1640 – 1650 minimum. His father, Ngcwangu, in turn could have been born in the 1620s which then has us looking at the 1580s – 1590s at least being the time of Tshawe’s early years.

In 1736 with the birth of the HOUSE OF PHALO the period of ubuTshawe House (approximately 150 years) had seen lots of changes and the submerging of clans and tribes came to reside under ubuTshawe patronage. Casual dabblers in history do not understand what Tshawe means in its use of conferring royal status. Tshawe and the rule of Tshawe when alive and posthumously had become a synonym for royalty and it remained respected even from the time of the new outstanding stamp on royalty – Phalo.

What people also tend to do is to confuse the development of Kingdoms with history. Before Kingdoms were imposed there were just clans and very little rigidity as every clan was a mix of Khoena, Bantu and even /Xam or !Ga !ne to some extent. The “Kingdoms” ideology was often ahistorical, just like today when people are creating kingdoms from thin air, simply because it may result in a government cheque every month and some land and a grandious title. The Xhosa identity was never hetrogenous as is pointed out by Jeff Peires author of “The House of Phalo”. By King Phalo’s time the practice of confederacy by the Xhosa was sealed.

The following Khoena clans joined the Xhosa Kingdom of ubuTshawe in time – the Ngqosini, Giqwa, Cete, and isiThathu voluntarily joined in accepting the ubuTshawe as a royal confederal umbrella constituting a mixed Xhosa-Khoena Kingdom and the customs and language was a mix of Khoena and SiNtu. By Phalo’s time this was entrenched and Khoi merging into the confederation continued. By Ngcwangu’s time in the mid 17th century Peires makes argument to demonstrate that the Xhosa had political ascendancy over most of the coastal Cape Khoi extending to the fringes of the Cape Peninsula. It is my opinion that this is only adequately demonstrated up to the territory of the Attaqua and Hessequa, and only by with mid 18th century during Phalo’s time, even although the Xhosa enjoyed a special relationship with the Chainoqua.

All of this happened some-time before the first conflictual engagements between the colonists and another tribe known as the Gqunukwebe is recorded when a commando of Europeans rode out of Stellenbosch in 1702 and moved up as far as the Zuurveld to raid cattle and encountered these people.

Who were the Gqunukwebe? After Tshawe’s time and before 1700 one of the Khoena clans (which also had a Sotho mix) – the Ngqosini under Chief Tshiwo revolted against the Xhosa Kingdom and made an alliance with a medicine man Khwane who had quietly built up a small Khoena army in the forests over some time. They were victorious and this is how these Khoena Xhosa joined by a number of Gonaqua Khoena people in the forests, formed the Gqunukwebe, (it actually is Xhosa word for Gonaqua) and became the southernmost Xhosa living alongside the Gonaqua in relative harmony. These were the first so-called Xhosa that the Europeans started raiding cattle from when commandos rode out from Stellenbosch in 1700.

The Gqunukwebe became a melting pot for the Hoengeyqua, Gonaquea, Gamtoos and even Hessequa refugees and Confederation military alliance was forged between them all under the elderly Chief Chungwa and the Khoena Chief Klaas Stuurman, and after his death with Chief David Stuurman. This was of course all in the South of the Eastern Cape.

In the north, the end of the 18th century saw the build up to the Zulu Mfecane which also added to the impacts when other Nguni refugees followed – the Ngwane, Bhele, the Zizi, the Hlubi, the Bhaca, the Qocwa and the Mfengu. The Mfecane at this time was preceded by the extension of the Mthetwa Empire, into which Shaka was born in 1787 in a the minor Zulu clan. All of this took place as the Colonial Conquest of the Eastern Cape began. Just as the VOC Dutch wars were starting in the region and then carried on in tandem with the first few British wars that seized Khoena and Xhosa land, so too by 1811 all hell had broken loose engulfing the Ndwandwe and Mthetwa, and within this fray the minor clan of Zulu under Shaka was becoming popular in Zululand. By 1819 Shaka was in ascendancy and in his short reign until 1828 when he was murdered, having consolidated the Ndwandwe and Mthetwas he finished what the Mthetwa Empire had started by expanding control north, west and south. The impact of this on the Sotho, Mpondomise, Mpondos, Hlubis, Bhaca and others put further pressure on the Xhosa pinned between British war and expansion in the South and the refugee groups and upheaval in the north. Colonial historians presented this very differently by projecting that the Xhosa were an Nguni invasion, and quack psuedo-historians punting 21st century ethno-nationalism through a degree of Khoi fakery present the same colonial and Apartheid history as though it were factual.

When in 1736 the House of Phalo emerged it did so with another fratricidal conflict within the Xhosa Kingdom. Next door to the original Cobuqua-Xhosa pre-Nguni were another powerful Khoena tribe – the Inqua also called the Humcumqua. They made a huge political military mistake in the region when they got involved in taking sides with one brother against the other in the Xhosa conflict. The Inqua took the side of the brother that lost and they were conquered in the process.

The Inqua Chief Hinsati made an alliance with the Xhosa King Gwali and gave him protection against his brother Mdange. The latter defeated the Inqua and installed Phalo as King and then assimilated the Inqua clans – Sukwini, Gqwashu and Nqarwane into the House of Phalo. So thereby another whole Khoena tribe with all its clans simply had a name change. They were Khoena or Khoi who suddenly became part of this by now more than 800 year old ever metamorphosing entity called “Xhosa”.

The House of Phalo also eventually split into two antagonistic tribes – the amaGcaleka of Chief Gqaika and the amaRharhabe of Chief Ndlambe. The Rharabe allied with the Gonaqua and Gqunukwebe against the colonists and Gqaika allied with the colonists against the Xhosa-Khoena Confederacy. Two amazing resistance fighters emerged from this alliance under the Rharhabe – General and Itola, Makhanda known As Nxele, whose mother was Khoena and father Xhosa; and Khoena Chief David Stuurman. Bothe ended up together as prisoners of war on Robben Island and both were in the same escape boat that made it to Bloubergstrand. Makhanda unfortunately drowned when the boat hit the rocks. Chief David Stuurman survived but was banished to Australia as a POW convict.

All of the Khoena tribes from the Zuurveld down into the Cape Peninsula had very strong familial links to the Xhosa, who were in fact to a great degree Khoena themselves as well as part Nguni. In modern times we tend to call all of the people of the Eastern Cape Xhosa and then assume all are Nguni. That is much too simplistic and it also feeds into the “Great Lie” that a Black invasion occurred more or less at the same time as a white invasion, and both are aliens to the Khoena.

From this historical falsehood has grown a false Khoena or Khoi separatism, and also the falsehood that the Khoena or Khoi are the ‘First People’ of the Cape, whereas they were pastoral migrants and only the /Xam were the ‘First People’. Besides everything else the commandos who slaughtered the /Xam were 60% made up of pacified Khoena. The few /Xam surviving the 1780s genocide by the VOC Commandos faced further genocide at the hands of the British and the Griquas in the 1800s.

We really need to hit this nonsense on the head fed by historical quakery. It is all based on notions of superiority indoctrinated among ‘Coloured’ people by the colonists and Apartheid racism and bigotry. Our history as Africans is much more complex and integrated than we want to believe. The evolution and the falling away and recreation of tribal and kingdom identities happened before Colonisation and was exploited to divide our ancestors at that time, just as it is dividing us now. And all sorts of opportunists and racists are climbing on board. There should be no place for racism in any united association of indigenes, and these cannot just be open to those labelled “Coloured” when history shows us that only a third of “Coloured” have Khoena heritage and probably an equal number of those today called “Xhosa” also have Khoena Heritage in the Cape. In the Gariep, Free State and right up to Limpopo and then across to KZN, there are also descendants of the Khoena.

The Cape Khoena heritage is real but it has nothing to do with race, colour, features and geo-location. The story is a lot more complex.

If we want to be true to ourselves and to our ancestors we should proceed cautiously and get to first embrace a non-colonial historical understanding of our roots. We also cannot just be trendy and adopt models from Canada, the USA and Australia.
I believe that in going forward and looking at all the components of our heritage that has been forced under this label “Coloured” we must honestly address the past, and there is much research to consult and everyday new information arises. We cannot neatly separate our indigene heritage which some carry in more weight than others from our Slavery ancestry from Africa, India and Southeast Asia, nor from the many other tributaries of migrants of colour whose descendants too were labelled “Coloured”.

I firmly believe that together we should be in exploration mode least fraudulent charletons and the Zuma State bamboozle us all for their own benefit just like previous regimes have done…. And then our people are betrayed. The dead give-away of the false doctrines floating about is that they are firmly a matter of the age old “DIVIDE & RULE”.

One of our old late stalwarts wished to leave a legacy of understanding that he as someone labelled ‘Coloured’ wanted to claim his African-ness by correction the colonial historical nonsense that created a wall between one indigene African people and another.

This colonial lie of “separateness” needs to be challenged at its roots. One of our late old stalwarts believed that we must be honest and face up to history and write our own pre-colonial narratives. Until we do so this notion of ‘Coloured’ superiority will not die out. We are an African people and will never find our African home and African rights if we keep following the ‘white’ lies. We are an integrated African people and separatism is not the answer to our problems. It is when we truly accept our African heritage in all its wonderful facets, and merge this with our slavery heritage seamlessly as the very blood that flows in our veins – then we will find peace and liberation.

He would say, “We have allowed the Europeans world view to become our world view. It is a common argument of the Europeans that where would Africa and South Africa be if it was not for the Europeans skill and hard work. They shout –look what good colonialism has done for you.” The only way to counter this is to stop believing their half-baked stories and making these our own. Look at the pre-colonial situation with honesty.


Disclaimer: The Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa (IFNASA) posted this article as part of a new project called “Who Am I, Who Are We”, soon to be launched. This article is purely for information and analysis. IFNASA appreciate the tireless efforts of Patric Mellet who are shading light on arguably the most difficult narrative and history of the South African people.







For Immediate Release

12th March 2019





UNISA’s Fraudulent and Discriminatory Hearings Postponed.

Fascinatingly, we just witness how Dr Marcia Socikwa tried to persuade parliament and South Africans that she is a trustworthy candidate for the new SABC Board.     How will South Africa trust Dr Socikwa who blatantly demonstrated her bigotry and fascist behaviour at UNISA? The South African Parliament, the President and the SABC would make a big mistake if they were to employ the services of Dr Socikwa, a known chauvinist, if we are to consider the current staff discrimination case and accusations levelled against her at UNISA. We cannot sit around idle and accept the oppressiveness towards citizens of this country, under her watch. What will she do at the SABC?

The Gauteng Shut-Down Co-ordinating Committee (GSCC) Team had to brace the painful N1 traffic congestion yesterday morning enroute to the most ludicrous game played by Dr Socikwa, Head of Operations at UNISA, in Pretoria. The humiliation and vilification of Four Staff Members now referred to as the #UNISA4 remains inexplicable and bizarre. These staff members had to endure all manner of personal attacks and public slander because they are Classified Coloureds and because they dared to speak-out against the ill treatment they experienced at the hands of a vicious Dr Socikwa who mercilessly made her personal mandate clear, ‘Fire Classified Coloureds and Indians’ at UNISA.

Some of the irregularities which needs the urgent attention of the Senate, Parliament and the National Minister of Higher Education is the alleged irregular appointment of Dr Blade Nzimande’s son, including the concealment of a report which could potentially implicate Dr Socikwa in wrong doing.

What has transpired instead is that two of the #UNISA4, who were suspended in October 2018, received notices to appear before a Disciplinary Committee (DC) yesterday. It is our unassuming opinion that UNISA fast-tracked the hearings in order to get rid of the esteem staff members. The DC postponed the matter to the 27th and 28th March 2019. We were led to believe that the hearings are not of public interest, hence security kept the GSCC Team at the entry point. Since Dr Socikwa attacked our entire community, it’s incumbent upon us, that as a Civil Rights Movement, fighting for the Poor and the Working-Class, especially Classified Coloureds, that we must respond and protect the integrity of our People, the Constitution of South Africa, the current staff members Classified Coloured, those who left the employ under similar circumstances and all those who would choose the institution as an employer in the future.

The GSCC would like to call upon the UNISA Vice Chancellor Prof. Makhanya, the Chancellor, Former President Thabo Mbeki, the Minister of Higher Education Naledi Pandor, Parliament and the entire South African population to detain this evil immediately. Every citizen of South Africa should protect the integrity of UNISA by condemning the barbaric act of character assassination of the Classified Coloured People, descendants of the First Nation and those of Indian descent. We will be considering laying charges with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and the Equality Court so that justice is served towards the staff and the community.

The GSCC will invite the SAHRC to attend the next hearings. We would like to invite the Media to a Press Conference on the morning of the 27th March 2019 at UNISA, where we will outline our program of action against racism and gross human rights violations many Classified Coloured People experience in various institutions, workplaces and within the country. The time to push-back has now come full circle. Classified Coloured People Will Not be Silenced! We will remain as the vanguard of the Poor and Working-Class and we will unapologetically fight for the rights of people called Coloureds. South Africa, we should not be here! We should have enjoyed the economic spoils as a collective diverse community. We can still live together, under the African Sun, however, the country must accept the Equal status of the First Nation People Classified as Coloured. Why should we suffer perpetually at the heartlessness and rootless bureaucrats? We deserve Equality, Fairness and Justice!


The Revolution is Not for Sale!




                                             Image result for marcia socikwa Dr Marcia Socikwa

Issued by: Gauteng Shut-Down Co-ordinating Committee (GSCC)


Please contact:  Chairperson – Anthony Phillip Williams 066 250 4948

General Secretary – Harry Smith 081 584 9435

Head of Education – Ricardo Terry 076 542 6693

Coloured Execs battle to get to the Top

Kurt April 22 Feb 2019 00:00

(John McCann/M&G)


New research from the University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business shows that Coloured professionals are struggling to transcend apartheid-imposed labels of identity and that this has negatively affected them in the workplace — making it harder for them to succeed at senior management level.

This is backed up by the Employment Equity Commission report for 2017-2018. A snapshot of the country’s workforce, the report lays bare the glacial progress corporate South Africa has made in the past 20 years towards transformation. Just under 68% of top positions in business are still filled by white South Africans, followed by 14.3% by black African South Africans.

Indian South Africans occupy 9.4% of top positions and Coloured professionals are in only 5.1% of such jobs — despite representing 9% of the population (roughly the same as white South Africans).

The inescapable conclusion of this is that 25 years of democracy, employment equity legislation, policies and work-based practices have contributed little to the deracialisation of the management profession. Coloured South Africans in particular remain disproportionately poorly represented.

The failure of the legislation to effect change suggests that there may be other factors at play and the business school’s research suggests that a crisis of identity among Coloured people is at the heart of the issue.

A crisis of identity

Bar the rigorous research conducted by Ruben Richards and covered in the book Bastaards or Humans: The Unspoken Heritage of Coloured People, few have attempted to unpack the complexity of Coloured identity in South Africa, let alone in the workplace.

Since the propagation of Black Consciousness ideology in the 1970s, the notion of a Coloured identity has been an emotive and contentious issue among the middle class, educated and politically astute, who opposed the classification. In post-apartheid South Africa, the focus has been on creating a collective national identity, but this appears to have resulted in further marginalisation of Coloured people along with a dissonance in ideological and cultural beliefs among them.

The business school’s research explored the notion of double consciousness and a diminished sense of belonging — a concept discussed at length in Mohamed Adhikari’s book Not White Enough, Not Black Enough: Racial Identity in the South African Coloured Community.

Of particular interest were the perceptions of Coloured identity and how this affected Coloured professionals’ work-based experiences. Common responses from respondents included the sense of “being watched” by superiors and having to work harder than peers to contradict stereotypes, for instance, of Coloured people being lazy, unmotivated and fond of drinking.

Many respondents who attained leadership positions reportedly became alienated from others in their community by preferring to assimilate into the dominant economic white group at the workplace — beginning to watch rugby, taking up cycling and golfing or listening to different music to fit in. More concerning, there was evidence that they withheld support and mentorship from other Coloured professionals and adopted unhealthy levels of competitiveness — what we termed “Cape cobra syndrome”.

Once in top positions, several individuals described themselves as being powerless to effect real change. They found themselves not having access to the right white networks in the private sector and similarly in the public sector, and also did not have access to the right networks in the black African government sector.

Boardroom decisions were often taken outside of work without their involvement and then ratified afterwards in the office. Many Coloured professionals also said they felt like token appointments (empowered powerlessness).

What is Colouredness?

Historically, the intrinsic nature of Colouredness is based on the ideology of racial hybridity and the misconception that it resulted from interbreeding between white and black people. This brought the stigma of racial inferiority and illegitimacy, which has been prevalent in populist thinking and is still found in work environments. On a psychological level, the effect is debilitating, contributing to feelings of low self-esteem and low confidence.

Perhaps the most worrying finding of the research was the lack of support and mentoring from the Coloured professional community. Conventional wisdom holds that discrimination against minority groups can be redressed by placing more people in positions of power to help to mentor juniors, and to help to improve outcomes for others.

But, in understanding the power dynamics at play and potential access, participants in the study chose cross-race mentors — and did not seek out other Coloured protégés once in positions of power. They displayed characteristics of self-distancing, manifesting in individuals seeing themselves as unique in their ambition and commitment. This is often perpetuated in the vernacular of white people when addressing skilled Coloured individuals.

There was furthermore a denial of discrimination, resulting in opposition to actions aimed at redressing inequalities and improving conditions. Together with “workplace belonging insecurity” (different to community belonging), the study found an alarming prevalence of negative stereotypes in the workplace, as well as self-deprecation, perpetuating the denigration of Coloured identity.

Where to from here?

The status quo in South Africa’s workplaces, particularly as it relates to Coloured professionals, clearly needs to shift. The study suggests that, if corporate South Africa wants to change, it has to redesign transformation and employment equity policies so that they are properly inclusive of Coloured people and make provision for equal participation under the definition of regionally appropriate, designated groups.

In addition, changing perceptions about Coloured identity may help to move the thinking beyond the stigmatising notion of “mixed race” identity and towards seeing cultural identities comprising detailed bodies of knowledge, specific cultural practices, memories, rituals and modes of being.

As sociologist Zimitri Erasmus, of the University of the Witwatersrand, puts it: “We can’t deny the meanings attached to skin colour. But we can learn to live differently in our skins. There is more than one way to be Coloured and more than one way to be black.”


Kurt April  Kurt April is an endowed professor and Allan Gray chair of leadership, diversity and inclusion at the University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business and is co-author of the study Diasporic Double Consciousness, Créolité and Identity of Coloured Professionals in South Africa, with Alun Josias

San And Khoe International Institute (SAKII)

San And Khoe International Institute (SAKII)

Founding Statement


The San and Khoe International Institute (SAKII) has been founded on the principals of a progressive Knowledge Base Indigenous First Nation People, which will be researching and developing the Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS), Develop Transformative Educational Systems and Content, Produce Academic Papers/Journals, Establishment of Good Government – Governance, Economic Papers and the Production of New Knowledge Development. The Ethical Code of Conduct and guidelines relating to the rights of, and respect for Indigenous and local communities, will be protected and local knowledge hedging. SAKII subscribe to the principles of “Respect, Preserve and Maintain Knowledge, Innovations and the Practices of Indigenous and Local communities embodying traditional lifestyles”, as per the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Welcome to – San and Khoe International Institute (SAKII) 

black metal wood top bench
Photo by Deneen Treble on



Time to Educate…

black metal wood top bench
Photo by Deneen Treble on


South Africa, A Nation and Constitution Cast in Contradictions


For Immediate Release

South Africa, A Nation and Constitution Cast in Contradictions

6th September 2018

Fellow South Africans,

Today, 6th September 2018, is a very important Historical Moment. The Khoe and San, continuously dehumanized, erroneously still called Coloured in democratic South Africa, although the National Party under F W De Klerk Abolished the Population Registration Act of 1950 in 1991 which classified all of us, call upon South Africans of all ethnic groups and the First Nation People, to seriously consider our plight for Freedom. We are not calling for an Emotional Change to the Constitution, we are calling for change of the Constitution because of historical Injustice that continue unabated. You cannot turn a blind eye anymore.

Today is historic not because IFNASA (Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa) will be making a presentation concerning Our Ancestral Land, but because every “Small Shot at the Target (Khoe-San-Coloured Liberation) is noteworthy from this moment onwards… South Africa, we call for sympathy as you can plainly observe the continuous false Identification of our People in a free country.

We will be representing the San and Khoe Coloured People in Parliament at around 10am on the Land Expropriation Without Compensation. We are Not entering the Land Expropriation Without Compensation debate because it is Inconsequential. Without our Identity Restored, engaging in the Land debate is futile.

We are advancing:

1. Constitutional Recognition – First Nation Status
2. Identity Reclamation
3. Removal of Subsection 7 of Section 25 of the Constitution
4. Symbolic Hand Back of the Land to the First Nation People – Sanctioned by the State
5. Negotiated Settlement is Justified once the Land Back Ceremony has been Completed – Spiritual Transaction – Clear Designated Areas
6. Reparations

IFNASA is resolute, we want Section 25 Subsection 7 “Removed” because it Aggressively and Violently Obstruct our Historical Claims to our Ancestral Land as the Constitutional Court has found in Case Number CCT 19/03. Section 25 Subsection 7 is Immoral and Fraudulent. Subsection 6 and Subsection 7 is in stark Contradiction with one another and so are many sections of the Constitution, glaring Conflict with one another.

Chapter 1 of the Constitution make reference to Human Dignity and Section 2, the Bill of Rights guarantees Equality and Human Dignity. The People called Coloureds are yet to enjoy these Rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Racism has been institutionalized, it cannot go uncontested. People are continuously referred to on the basis of color, surely this is inhumane. Racial Categorization Perpetuate Racism, we need to Stop the insanity.

The Failure by the State to provide the appropriate enabling environment for the Recognition – Restoration of the First Nation People and recognition of our fellow Bantu-Nguni’s, clearly violates the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The fact that our Ancestral Languages are not enjoying any legal and official standing, while it was hijacked and placed in the Coat of Arms, clearly reveal that the Nation is in Contradiction and Conflict with the First Nation People. While every community in South Africa enjoy the platform of a State sanctioned National Radio Station, the so called Coloured People are the only Nation without such privileges. It is inconceivable and inexplicable.

We call on every so-called Coloured and every Justice loving Citizen of South Africa, the region, the continent and the world to join us later today (6th September 2018) and make your Voice heard.

Use the (Hash tag)


Please find us on DSTV 408 on Parliament TV and help us Change the cause of History. What we Collectively “Say and Do” could potentially help us eat a little piece off the Elephant called – Injustice, Oppression and Conscious Marginalization.

Your Prayers are absolutely essential and appreciated. Let us remain committed to our People’s Total Freedom. The Total Freedom of the Khoe and San Coloured People and the Full Freedom of All South Africans.

Join Khoe and San Coloured Revolution and Reject our Exclusion.

Kei Gangangs

Anthony Phillip Williams

+27 (0) 61 084 5053

Join us at:

Are We Ready to Pay the Price?


South Africa is preparing for a Revolution, can we see it and are we Ready?

To make sense of what South Africa is confronted with, in terms of Economy, Land, Identity and the battle for Control of the countries Purse, called control of the Resources, we must take a few steps back and properly analyze Revolutions. We have entered an undisputed ‘Point of No Return’, like Julius Caesar and his ilk. The Land Expropriation Without Compensation Hearings has timeously push the State and the People, particularly the Proletariat, that means the poor to the edge.

Capitalist and Capitalism have been flaunting and bragging with flashy cars and exotic toys for too long and the People, the grassroots, has had enough of the charade. Those who continue to appropriate the spoils of a relatively bloodless war, a transition from apartheid to democracy, without sharing with the First Nation People and the Masses of Indigenous Africans, are now at gunpoint.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was one of the most explosive political events of the twentieth century. The violent revolution marked the end of the Romanov dynasty and centuries of Russian Imperial rule. During the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks, led by leftist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, seized power and destroyed the tradition of csarist rule. The Bolsheviks would later become the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

The Russian Revolution took place in 1917, during the final phase of World War I. It removed Russia from the war and brought about the transformation of the Russian Empire into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), replacing Russia’s traditional monarchy with the world’s first Communist state. The revolution happened in stages through two separate coups, one in February and one in October. The new government, led by Vladimir Lenin, would solidify its power only after three years of civil war, which ended in 1920.

Although the events of the Russian Revolution happened abruptly, the causes may be traced back nearly a century. Prior to the revolution, the Russian monarchy had become progressively weaker and increasingly aware of its own vulnerability (and therefore more reactionary). Nicholas II—the tsar who led Russia in the years leading up to the revolution—had personally witnessed revolutionary terrorists assassinate his grandfather and, subsequently, his own father respond to the assassination through brutal oppression of the Russian people. When Nicholas II himself became tsar in 1894, he used similarly severe measures to subdue resistance movements, which were becoming bolder and more widespread every year. As Nicholas’s newly imposed oppressions in turn incited still more unrest, he was forced to make concessions after each incident: it was in this manner that Russia’s first constitution was created, as was its first parliament. These concessions continued gradually until Nicholas II’s grip on power became very tenuous. The historical accounts of the Russian transformation exactly mirror South Africa at this juncture. The ANC, the reigning monarch is now with their backs against the wall. They too have to make a number of concessions of which the most important was to bow to their youth league called EFF demands on Land Expropriation Without Compensation, amongst others.

As Nicholas II grew weaker, Vladimir Lenin rose to prominence as the most powerful figure in Russia. Although this famous leader of the October Revolution was not even in Russia for the February Revolution—he had lived in self-imposed exile in Europe since 1900 and returned to Russia only in April 1917—he nonetheless exerted tremendous influence. Whatever history’s judgment of him, few other Russian revolutionaries possessed Lenin’s decisiveness and strength of vision for Russia’s future. Born in 1870 in the provincial town of Simbirsk as Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov, the young Lenin was profoundly affected by his older brother Alexander’s 1887 execution for being involved in a plot to assassinate the tsar. As a young adult, Vladimir joined the resistance movement himself and took the pseudonym Lenin but swore that he would never engage in the sort of “adventurism” that had ended his brother’s life. Nevertheless, his actions would one day become very adventurous indeed. To that extent, we too can now extract valuable lessons and data from his life stories.

The revolution that Lenin led marked one of the most radical turning points in Russia’s 1,300-year history: it affected economics, social structure, culture, international relations, industrial development, and most any other benchmark by which one might measure a Revolution. We continue to hear that the economy should not be destabilized as the country navigate a difficult transition. What does that mean? How are we going to effect change without rattling the economic cage? It’s inconceivable. We must redesign the structure of the economy if we are going to Liberate South Africans. Although the new Russian government of the time, would prove to be at least as repressive as the one it replaced, the country’s new rulers were drawn largely from the intellectual and working classes rather than from the aristocracy—which meant a considerable change in direction for Russia. This again, mirrors the South African reality today.

Lenin, was by far my favorite character in history at school, although I couldn’t perceive the extent of that the Revolution, that it happened to real people and that it was a reality and not fiction. I thought it to be the imagination of historians of the time. The Russian Revolution opened the door for Russia to fully enter the industrial age. Prior to 1917, Russia was a mostly agrarian nation that had dabbled in industrial development only to a limited degree. By 1917, Russia’s European neighbors had embraced industrialization for more than half a century, making technological advancements such as widespread electrification, which Russia had yet to achieve. After the revolution, new urban-industrial regions appeared quickly in Russia and became increasingly important to the country’s development. The population was drawn to the cities in huge numbers. Education also took a major upswing, and illiteracy was almost entirely eradicated. What we do in South Africa to prepare for the Revolution and post the Revolution is critical, the Russian accounts are sobering and enviable. History should be our teacher so that we don’t fail our people. What format the Revolution will take, is not entirely clear, what is visible is a rebut of the status quo.

Although the events of the Russian Revolution happened abruptly and hoping that we in SA can learn something from it, the causes may be traced back nearly a century. Prior to the revolution, the Russian monarchy had become progressively weaker and increasingly aware of its own vulnerability (and therefore more reactionary). The monarch in South African context is the ANC and they too have become acutely aware of their vulnerability as the ruling party, hence the knee-jerk reaction of changing the country’s constitution without the required constitutional mandatory public participation concluded. It’s a moment of desperation and they will do anything to cling on to power. Although this power remains superficial and inconsequential, at least economically speaking.

There is way too much talk happening on social media platforms. Some of us, who work tirelessly on the Khoe and San Coloured People’s Liberation project and the general freedom of all Oppressed South Africans, we see the signs of renewal on the horizon, while rejection is becoming palpable, transparent and for that reason we should desist the unnecessary long winded conjecture. We need strategist.

I’m not trying to denounce the contributions of others, but it’s important that we get to a point where we fully engage the extent of the Program of Action. National consultations remains a necessity, notwithstanding, the lessons learned in the past and resent past induce all of us to properly assess, analyze and interpret the status quo. Revolutions seems to be happening sporadically and almost leader-less if we take the Bouazizi account seriously. In the absence of a Collective Coherent Strategy to getting the Indigenous African People access to the Economy and Land, the masses are loosing patience and before they loose the momentum in the current leader-less crisis, in a renewed state offered all of us, this includes the Khoe and San Coloured People and Bantu – Nguni and Eurokaner nationals, the People seems to be Ready to repeat the Arab Spring in a twinkling of an eye. We must really think about our Strategy to Liberate our People? By People I mean, Indigenous First Nation and our Bantu-Nguni Nation People. It will ultimately have to come to a collective resistance of all progressive people. If we as Khoe and San Coloured People think we can fight alone, we will soon be confronted with reality.

It was in 2010 eight years ago, that a Revolutionary Youthful Cadre, the 26-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi was getting ready to sell fruits and vegetables in the rural town of Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia. Many of our informal traders in SA are all too familiar with the Bouazizi’s story. They too suffer the same fate daily.

Bouazizi was the breadwinner for his widowed mother and six siblings, but he didn’t have a permit to sell the goods (Sounds * Familiar JMPD). When the police asked Bouazizi to hand over his wooden cart, he refused and a policewoman allegedly slapped him. That’s when all hell broke loose.

Angered after being publicly humiliated, Bouazizi marched in front of a government building and set himself on fire.

His act of desperation resonated immediately with others in the town. Protests began that day in Sidi Bouzid, captured by cellphone cameras and shared on the Internet. We in South Africa watched with anguish and resentment, because we all suffer like Bouazizi at the hands of a Brutally Oppressive Capitalist and Neo-Liberalism system, irrespective of religion, spiritual persuasion. We could immediately connect to his experience.

Within days, protests started popping up across the country, calling upon President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his regime to step down. About a month later, he fled.

The momentum in Tunisia set off uprisings across the Middle East that became known as the Arab Spring. A year after the young Tunisian became a martyr, where does the Arab world stand on demands for democracy? Was it worth it, many ask?

This story resonate with me as I begin to ask myself, to what extent are we willing to engage the Limpid and Unambiguous Revolution the country is confronted with? Who will Liberate the Khoe and San Coloured People and who will Liberate South Africans? Are we waiting for Bouazizi? Clearly, the uprisings of the last few years and the radical actions of some revolutionary leaders ignited a “Point of No Return”. What are we going to do with it and what are we waiting for? Who are we waiting for? What will it take to tip the scales?

One thing is sure, it’s not going to come without resistance. It doesn’t seem that the Land will be returned without conflict and combat. There is a Price to Pay for Freedom!

The momentum in Tunisia set off uprisings across the Middle East that became known as the Arab Spring, are we Ready for the SA Spring?

Are we Ready to Pay the Price?

Anthony Phillip Williams

Northern Cape Says YES To Expropriation

Participants in attendance at City Hall



A dominant theme was present amongst citizens of the Northern Cape who attended parliament’s public hearings on amending the Constitution to allow for land expropriation without compensation,  with majority of the participants saying that land must be expropriated without compensation.

The Northern Cape’s vast land mass is mostly arid, but attendees are of the view that any land is better than no land. The mining industries use of land for economical purposes, that may have been previously owned by indigenous people was raised in all the hearings across the province.  In a province where more than 100 different minerals are present, albeit not all with economic value, it was no surprise that communities, most of which are poverty stricken and unemployed, would be very emotional about the topic of land expropriation.

The public hearings in the province started in Springbok where some participants questioned the effects of the proposed amendments on the job sector. Farmers that made inputs feared that food security will not be guaranteed if the amendments do indeed go ahead.

At the Upington hearing, representatives of the Khoi and San communities said that their rights of land ownership, which dates back centuries, should be restored as the “original owners of the land in the Northern Cape.” The Upington area is home to some of South Africa’s richest grape and wine farmers in South Africa and most of them were vocal in their opposition to the proposed amendments.

The hearings in Kuruman focused on land that is currently used for mineral extraction and the “exclusive use of water” by some of the farmers in the area.

The last round of the Province’s hearings that was held at the Kimberley City Hall saw queues forming outside the venue waiting to be scanned by the police prior to entering. Mining giant De Beers came under fire from a number of participants due to their vast land ownership in and around Kimberley and the extraction of diamonds for more than a century. The Kimberley hearings were the most well attended in terms of numbers, and participants form various political parties and organisations were well represented. Well known farmer and owner of Wildeklawer Louis de Kock, told the hearing that it was the erstwhile British governor of the Cape Colony, Henry Barkly that took Kimberley from the Griquas and moved them to Griekwastad. He was not entirely opposed to expropriation, but preferred compensation because, according to him “most land was removed from people by governments. We should ask the British government to help with the funding of giving the land back.”

Solomon Star spoke to some of the participants and the general view is that land ownership and dignity goes hand in hand. One participant, Mr Langeveldt indicated that he wants his ancestral land back, but was concerned about the absence of funding to make the land commercially viable. Another participant, Ms Medupe said “I’m staying in a shack at the moment, at the back of someone else’s property. I just need a piece of land to build my own house.” One of the oldest participants, Mr Beukes questioned how the land expropriation process will unfold where the urban land is occupied by another family. The plight of the Griqua community was also sharply raised and their representative questioned why their land claims have remained unresolved for more than 10 years. The Red Meat Producers Organisation argued against amendment of the constitution and was concerned about food security.

The constitutional review committee says the Northern Cape leg of the public hearings has been largely conducted in an orderly manner. They will move on to the Free State to listen to more oral submissions from the public. The committee is also tasked with processing more than 700 000 written submissions received from the public and organisations.




Indigenous First Nation Advocacy Khoe-San Land Summit Statement

Indigenous First Nation Advocacy Khoe-San Land Summit Statement


7th May 2018

General Summary

The Khoe and San Land Summit founding Statement: “Racial Categorization perpetuates racism! We reject the so called “Black” notion because it’s a colonial imposed label, racially motivated and devoid of any academic or intellectual substance. The Land called South Africa historically was occupied by the San and the Khoe before any other group. The Land must be returned symbolically first to the Khoe and San and than a negotiated settlement is justified.”

Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa (IFNASA), who organized the recent Khoe and San Land Summit carefully observe the continuous contradictions and conflicts in South African since democracy, which is beginning to find curious and concerning expressions amongst ordinary citizens as demonstrated by the communities of Mitchells Plain and Siqala in Cape Town. So, allow us to take this opportunity to remember the young life which was lost during the regrettable altercation, the struggle for our freedom will always remember the 19 year old Muhammad Tariq Mohamed and all those hurt in the process on both sides. It’s equally a tragic moment in the history of our country as we have learned of the brutal slaying of Pappa Aubrey Jackson and Mamma Rosalie Bloch, parents of Graeme Bloch and in laws of struggle veteran Cheryl Carolus. We remember all the lives lost at the brutal hand of an uncaring callous political system especially the lives on the Cape Flats.

The relative smooth transition in South Africa, from apartheid to a supposed legitimate social equality state continue to reveal fractures, notwithstanding, racism persist to be salient in the social justice and political make-up of South Africans, while we experience both intended and instinctive racial oppression. Besides the internal confusion and conflict we as a people experience amongst ourselves as it pertains to our apartheid classification, the new society has made our journey into democracy unbearable in every way possible. The continuous Coloured people’s marginality and our uniqueness is reflected in the South African historiography, yet the government continues to parade us under a false identity. History has generous accounts of our people’s origin and the subsequent inflicted mutation from the first homosapien (wise man) to savages. Very little has been written by ourselves concerning our history as a social group and much of what has been written either reproduces the simplistic formulations of popular racist conceptions of the Coloured identity or focuses narrowly on Coloured remonstration (disputes) politics and rarely correctly cover the social injustices suffered by our community. The existing literature largely disregards crucial questions relating to the “Genocide” “Original Cultural Sin” and “Character” of Coloured identity, including the social and political dynamic that inform Coloured distinctiveness.

By assuming Colouredness to be either an in-bred quality that is the automatic product of miscegenation (mixture) or an artificial identity imposed by the white supremacist establishment on weak and vulnerable people as part of a divide-and-rule strategy, this diverse historiography has denied people called Coloured a significant role in the making of their own “Identity” and “Land Ownership” in the country of our ancestors.

It is essential that we emphasize that the state continue to perpetuate past evils and it has become seemingly incapable as a democratic developmental institution, which is supposed to advance strategic orientation of the populace, now instead perpetuate institutional racism through racial categorization and ring fence a system that places the needs of the poor and social safety in the hands of some unscrupulous capitalist agenda.


Land and Identity the – Makeover

Colleagues, we want you to appreciate the focus on identity and land and why we spend considerable time taking you through some details. The Land Summit participants recognized the conflict between our imposed identity called “Coloured” and our authentic identity of which the majority of Coloureds are originating from, the San and Khoe and we will give greater interpretation as the brief unfolds. We realized that Land, Identity and Language are intricately linked. The summit noted the important development that took place on 20th March 2018, when the South African Human Rights Commission released an historic and groundbreaking report on the human rights violations against the Khoe and San community in South Africa, who are incessantly labeled Coloured.

It is unfortunate that very little analysis were done on the SAHRC report and we know that some in the corridors of power is hoping that the report will just magically evaporate, well, it’s not going to disappear until the government deals with the content. The SAHRC report reads: “The Commission has developed directives and recommendations in line with its mandate to promote the protection, development and attainment of human rights for the Khoi-San in South Africa, and in this way, aims to contribute to the transformation of society and the attainment of social cohesion and reconciliation. In considering the directives and recommendations set out, organs of State must recall the obligations set out in Section 181(3) of the Constitution to support and cooperate with the Commission. On this basis, the Commission strongly encourages that the recommendations be taken seriously and calls for the on-going commitment by all Parties, but also stresses the importance of co-operative governance and inter-sectoral collaboration in addressing the complex and interlinking challenges of the Khoi-San.”


We will now mention just two of the over 50 recommendations and directives:

Under the heading, Identity and recognition number (7.1.1) mention: “The State, through the Presidency and DAC (Department of Arts and Culture), must take steps on or before 31 March 2019 towards removal of the forceful categorisation of Khoi and San peoples as “Coloured”. Secondly in (7.1.2) is mentions that: “CoGTA, through the Minister, must ensure before 18 months of issuing of this report that official recognition of indigenous communities, through legislative and administrative processes, are equitable to the recognition of other traditional communities, and must not place an undue burden on Khoi and San communities desiring to receive official recognition from the State. In this regard, it is noted that “equitable” does not require the same treatment, but in noting the distinct context of the Khoi-San from other traditional communities, the department is required to meaningfully engage with the Khoi-San with a view of developing reasonable and practical procedures.”

The reason why we’re quoting from the SAHRC report is because it speaks directly to the heart of our ancestral land dispossession. The dispossession was meticulously executed and with military precision. What the colonizers and those captains of apartheid did was to successfully impose a new culture on our ancestors to the extent that we have lost the land and identity in the process.

Various accounts clearly show historical analysis of the Natives Land Act of 1913 which suggest long-term processes of colonization and dispossession, or colonial conquest. Some scholars see the starting point from the seventeenth century when the Khoe and San became the first group of African people to suffer colonization and dispossession from European permanent settlement and expansion of Europeans into their territory. After the incorporation of the Cape into the British Empire, further expansion of colonial boundaries extended colonial conquest of the Xhosa chiefdoms through the Eastern Frontier Wars for the better part of the first half of the nineteenth century. Colonial conquest then gathered pace from the second half of the nineteenth century especially from the 1860s and 1880s and brought much of southern Africa within the colonial restrictions. The major events here were the “mineral revolution” and the broader “scramble for Africa.” Through these phases of colonial conquests, various groups of African peoples (like Bantus and Nguni’s) in southern Africa were formally dispossessed of the land they settled on. The summit recognizes all the other African groups who settled in South Africa before the European settlers came to dispossess the land from the natives.

In the conquest of the Khoe and San, the result was the complete undermining of pre-existing political economies, customary law and the incorporation in to a subservient position (as labourers) in colonial society. The result was that our autonomous San societies and Khoikhoi chiefdoms ended. In some instances, however, groups of survivors moved further inland where they reconstituted themselves into varying formations including chiefdoms. The expansion into the “eastern frontier,” similarly in the disruption of pre-existing political economies, but some chiefdom remained in place though in a subservient political position.

Some of the Land Summit Resolutions follows:

  • The Coat of Arms bears testimony as to who occupied South Africa from the beginning of time. Why does the state continue to deny us our ancestral land and identity?
  • That the Khoe and San are the First Nation People of South Africa.
  • Government should establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to deal with all related issues of Identity Theft, Land Dispossession, Language and related issues of genocide and trauma suffered by us and other African people of South Africa.
  • The Khoe and San with government should enhance and accelerate inter-ethnic dialogue to close the gap between the Indigenous Africans.
  • Renegotiate transformational economic instruments like BBBEE, EE and AA amongst others because it generally excludes our people from empowerment opportunities.
  • We as a community should create social cohesion ambassadors.
  • The constitution’s notorious section 25 subsection (7) has unjustly ruled and prejudice against the Indigenous First Nation People’s dignity as espoused in the preamble of the constitution and access to land rights. This piece of law is unsound and based on colonial conquest philosophy (Native Land Act No 30 of 1913). Section 25 subsection (8) petition the state to make exceptions when it highlight that: No provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination, provided that any departure from the provisions of this section is in accordance with the provisions of section 36 (1). We note that the government did make provision for such exceptions, however we reject it because there was no consultation when the constitution was drafted and as advocated for by international law.


The Indigenous First Nation People identity mutation and land dispossession, now protected by the constitution of South Africa has seen the struggle icons profoundly mute and our existence omitted, misplaced and miscarriage while the progressive voices are conspicuously tacit at a time when the land conversation as it pertains to our community has been energetic. The summit noted that the dialogue has been dominated by questionable voices. We acknowledge that in November 2004, Cabinet adopted a memorandum that would lead to an official policy on recognizing our “vulnerable indigenous communities”. The Traditional and KhoiSan Leadership Bill (2015) was supposed to gives effect to this decision, notwithstanding, the Bill is hopelessly inadequate and cannot meaningfully affirm our status as First Nation People of South Africa. The summit resolve is that the constitution is to be amended firstly to affirm the Khoe and San as First Nation People and that section 25 be removed because subsection 7 excludes the Khoe and San claim to land before 1913. We call on government to establish a Special Land Tribunal because the Indigenous First Nation People was deliberately sidelined at the pre-democracy settlement negotiations.

We call on the African National Congress to return to their historical memorable struggle credentials and meet the Khoe and San Leaders at the Round Table.


We thank you


/The End….     Issued by: Indigenous First Nation Advocacy South Africa   (IFNASA)

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑