de Koker Page 1 of 15

Marieke de Koker
African Politics

Conflicts Within The Indigenous Peoples Movement of South Africa: Who Is Truly Indigenous?

     The Indigenous Peoples Movement of South Africa is part of a contemporary global

post-colonial discourse on indigeneity, largely inspired by the indigenous peoples of the

Americas and Australia. This movement has been undertaken by the marginalized Khoe and

Sān minorities of South Africa in a fight for both cultural-historical legitimacy and recognition,

as well as restitution demands such as land claims and necessary government services. Many

Khoe descendants that form part of the contemporary Coloured ethnic identity have sought

to reclaim their roots, becoming what some academics call “Neo-Khoi”¹, translated here as

kawa-Khoe*. To date this movement has been significantly hindered by divisive arguments

about the cultural legitimacy of Colored kawa-Khoe descendants, and the movement’s

demand for “first nations” status which has been refuted by the Ntu† majority groups and the

South African government. The concept of “first nations” is in direct disagreement with the

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights report which asserts that indigeneity in

Africa pertains not to “first inhabitants”, but instead to marginalized minorities whose ways of

life differ considerably from the dominant society.² The Indigenous Peoples Movement of

South Africa can achieve significant progress if it accepted the ACHPR definition of

indigeneity and fully embraced kawa-Khoe supporters and the Khoe Renaissance. This paper

will explore the applicability and definition of indigeneity in South Africa, and how this relates

to the fractures within the Indigenous Peoples Movement and its kawa-Khoe members. 

“Indigenous” is defined as “existing naturally or having always lived in a place”³. While

the term “indigenous” has been used in the Americas and Australia to describe pre-colonial

inhabitants, this definition is difficult to apply to a continent comprised of thousands of tribes

with a continuous history of evolution, migration and assimilation. In order to understand

why the movement is demanding “first nations” status, and why this concept is problematic in
* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 

† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 2 of 15

South Africa, it is necessary to look at the history of the Khoe and Sān tribes and their

descendants in South Africa, as their histories intertwine with the Ntu tribes, European

colonialists and Asian slaves to form contemporary Khoe and Sān identities.

Some of the prominent Khoe and Sān groups in South Africa include the Nama,

Griqua, Koranna, !Xun, Khwe and ‡Khomani San.⁴ Though, there is difficulty dividing these

ethnic groups and their languages into distinct categories due to overlapping and changes

over time. Even the language groupings exist in dialect clusters that fall under the language

families of Khoe and Tuu, and this reflects the tribal lifestyle of these peoples who never lived

in large population groupings. These ethnic minorities comprise an estimated 1% of South

Africa’s population and stretch into the neighboring countries of Botswana, Namibia, Angola,

Lesotho and eSwatini.⁵ These tribes have often been clumped together under the

inappropriate labels of “Khoisan”, “Bushman” or “Hottentots” by Europeans. Many still believe

they speak “the click language,” but in reality these groups are so diverse that a member of

one cannot necessarily understand the other’s language.

The Khoe and Sān have roamed the plains of Africa since the dawn of mankind, known

for their nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle. About 20,000 BC these tribes made up the

majority of the human population.⁶ They are exceptionally knowledgable about nature,

animal tracking and trapping, and herbal medicine. Their rich heritage includes rock paintings

that date back thousands of years, unique musical instruments and singing, and an intricate

religious and cosmological belief system.⁷ The distinction between Khoe and Sān lies within

the economy of a particular tribe, where Sān are hunter-gatherers and Khoe own cattle and

cultivate crops. In reality many tribes switched between ways of live, sometimes even

seasonally.⁸ The Sān lifestyle is centered around the absence of ownership, where everything

is shared among tribe members.

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 3 of 15

Contemporary laws have threatened their way of life by imposing borders and land

ownership, and outlawing the hunting of wild animals which are rarely found outside of game

parks. Furthermore, African deserts continue to grow due to climate change, causing food

shortages for these tribes. The majority of the Khoe and Sān of South Africa have been driven

to extinction or migrated into the Northern deserts bordering Namibia and Botswana. They

are considered “lowlifes in society” and have “very little political representation.”⁶

Between 2000 BC and the 1500s the Ntu tribes migrated from Central Africa to Eastern

and Southern Africa⁹ - the forefathers of today’s Zulu, Xhosa and Sotho majorities, along with

the Tswana, Tsonga, Swati, Venda, Pedi and Ndebele tribes of South Africa.¹⁰ The term “Bantu”

or “Nguni” was given to these tribes based on what languages sounded linguistically similar to

European academics. These newly migrated tribes brought more domesticated animals, crops

and iron to South Africa which allowed them to prosper.¹ Trade and intermarriage occurred

between the Ntu, Khoe and Sān, and over time the Ntu tribes grew to dominate the Eastern

parts of South Africa while the Khoe and Sān thrived in the desert climate of the Western

parts.¹ The Ntu groups now comprise the ethnic majority in South Africa and are the dominant

representation in the South African government.

In the 1600s the arrival of the Portuguese, Dutch and French, as well as the British in

the 1800s, further influenced the history of the Khoe and Sān through colonization, slavery,

wars, Apartheid and globalization. The Dutch settled in the Cape of South Africa to create a

port for European ships on the way to South Asia for the spice trade. They encountered the

Khoe tribes and initially established positive trade relations.¹¹ The Dutch brought slaves from

Indonesia, Madagascar, Angola, Guinea and India and prohibited the slavery of indigenous

South Africans to protect the cattle trade.¹¹ Though, the Khoe were still marginalized by the

Dutch demands for cattle, land and water, and suffered from European diseases.

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 4 of 15

As more Dutch settlers arrived, some started moving inland. Known as the

“Voortrekkers” or “Boers”, these settlers were essentially abandoned by the Dutch government

and forged their own battles against African tribes as they moved North and East.¹¹

Missionaries later followed, hoping to convert natives to European religion and culture. The

Khoe and Sān tribes suffered from the forced trade, plundering, human and cattle diseases

that settlers brought, and in turn they stole cattle and burned down the homes of settlers.¹

Meanwhile, the Khoe of the Cape were largely creolized by the melting pot of cultures

from slaves and European settlers. Since there weren’t many European women, many of the

men cohabited with indigenous women and a thriving sex trade ensued. Female slaves were

paid in cash to bear children since the “production of children by whatever means was

encouraged by the Dutch authorities.”¹² As slavery became more widely practiced the Khoe

peoples and mixed race descendants were also subject to slavery.¹¹ The descendants of

European and Khoe are known as Basters or Griqua and these groups still exist today. In the

1800s the Baster descendants, as well as the Khoe servants known as Oorlam, migrated from

the Cape to Namibia.¹³ Conflicts ensued between the Khoe descendants and the Nama and

Tswana tribes of the North in a competition for land and resources.¹¹ The Oorlams largely

assimilated and adopted the Khoekhoewab language of the Nama.

Other Khoe and Sān groups in the Cape joined forces with Ntu tribes like the Xhosas,

waging guerrilla wars and raids against the Dutch.¹¹ Eventually the British were the ones to

outlaw slavery in 1833,¹⁴ and after the Anglo-Boer wars they formally colonized South Africa in

1910 for its natural resources.¹⁵ Vast land expropriation occurred in the scramble for gold and

diamonds. The Khoe people were largely seen as subhuman in European eyes, to the point

where Khoe were held in zoos in Europe.¹⁶

With an increasing number of educated African people in the late 19th century, the

British laid out segregational laws to keep non-Europeans from gaining economic power and

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 5 of 15

influence.¹⁷ Under Apartheid law the Khoe, Sān, Baster, Griqua, Oorlam and mixed race

peoples were clumped under the ambiguous racial category of “Colored”. The Apartheid

government created “Bantustans” or tribal territories for the “Bantu” tribes, governing through

compliant indigenous chiefs.”¹⁵ The Khoe and Sān tribes were not recognized or granted self-

governing territories and were instead forcibly assimilated into the Afrikaans speaking

Colored territories. Most Khoe and Sān were stripped of their identity and culture - some as

early as the 1600s, for others as late as the 1950s. Today, the Colored people are known as a

distinct Afrikaans-speaking ethnic group of mixed heritage with a unique culture, comprising

8.8% of the population.¹⁸ The Khoe and Sān remain largely invisible to average South Africans.

Since the 17th century colonization of the Cape until contemporary today, the Khoe

and Sān tribes and sub-tribes of Southern Africa have been marginalized and driven to

extinction through the colonization, slavery, wars, Apartheid and globalization. Their

languages, culture and lifestyle has been continually suppressed, forcibly removed and lost to

assimilation. The Black Consciousness movement of the 70s sparked an interest in reclaiming

Khoe and Sān roots, and the fall of Apartheid in 1994 sparked a surge in indigenous activism.¹

Though, the Khoe and Sān have been largely disappointed by the new South African

government which focused restitution efforts mostly on Ntu groups. The Restitution of Land

Rights Act of 1994 was written with regard to land forcibly removed after the British Natives

Land Act of 1913, while Khoe and Sān land was taken mostly between the 17th and 19th

century.¹⁸ To this day their languages are not recognized among official languages, they are

not formally acknowledged in most government documentation, and they have no rights to

land claims. Recent U.N. reports have highlighted the high poverty rate of these communities,

mentioning that “the most pressing concern of all the Khoi-San communities is securing their

land base, and… re-establishing access to natural resources.”¹⁸


While the South African government has voted in favor of adopting the U.N.

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 6 of 15

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,⁴ they have rejected the notions of a “First

Nation” on the grounds that all African tribes should be considered indigenous. Recently the

South African government signed the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act and Indigenous

Knowledge Bill.¹⁹ While these laws offer Khoe and Sān tribes the opportunity to exercise tribal

recognition and power like other African tribes, they do not address the larger political issues

such as land ownership or official language recognition. These laws have been praised for

granting Khoe and Sān tribes increased recognition, independence and autonomy. Though, it

has also been criticized for giving traditional leaders “the right to sign deals with investment

companies without obtaining the consent of the people whose land rights are affected,”

therefore breaching the “fundamental Constitutional Rights.” ²⁰ Furthermore the South African

government has failed to deliver all the indigenous peoples rights as per the U.N. Declaration.

Particularly the rights to language and cultural education, environmental conservation,

resource compensation, to the “repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains” and to

representation in “State-owned media [that] reflect indigenous cultural diversity” were

severely neglected.²¹

The newly formed Khoisan Revolution Party has won one seat in the Nama Khoi Local

Municipality of Namakwa.⁴ Since November 2018 a group of Khoe and Sān protestors have

been camping on the lawns of the Union Buildings in what some deem to be South Africa’s

longest protest. They have been demanding that President Ramaphosa declare the Khoe and

Sān “first nations”, the rightful owners of South African land, in the hopes that this status

change would allow them to be included in land claims. They also demand that the term

“Coloured” be removed from all government documentation. This same group attempted to

self-declare sovereignty by inaugurating their “Chief Khoisan SA” on election day in 2019.²²

Their traditional priest Victor Gelderbloem announced that they “own all land in South Africa”

and want to “lead…the nation.”²² Another “King of the Khoisan,” Khoebaha Calvin Corneilius²³

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 7 of 15

attempted to exercise self-determination by declaring that the Cape had seceded from South

Africa. This group removed the South African flag from the Parliament building and put up an

eviction notice that stated “those officials who want to stay should register themselves as

aliens and provide documentation… in the Sovereign State of Good Hope.”²⁴ These activities

have not been recognized by the South African government or any other international

organizations, since secession is not supported by the U.N. Declaration. There are several men

claiming to be the only Khoisan king, which has caused the South African people to ridicule

and shrug off the activities of the movement. 


The Indigenous Peoples Movement has significant goals to fight for, but unifying a

strong political movement has proven to be difficult considering that the Khoe and Sān are a

widely scattered minority whose descendants live a variety of lifestyles ranging from

authentically traditional to Westernized alienation from indigenous culture. The fact that

different groups in separate locations try to self-declare Kingship and sovereignty proves how

fractured the movement truly is. The movement is “married by infighting…splintered, not just

between political factions, but also among traditional chiefs.”¹⁸ Furthermore two major

debates has divided the movement and hindered its effectivity and power: the question of

whether “first nations” is an applicable concept to Khoe and Sān, and whether Colored

descendants should be allowed to claim Khoe identity.

The first major problem with the Indigenous Peoples Movement of South Africa is its

demand for first nations status. This debate has been occurring between indigenous

movements and governments throughout the continent of Africa, and to date no tribe in

Africa as ever been given “first nations” status. “First nations” is an appropriate term for

indigenous peoples in countries like Australia, Canada, or the United States, where European

colonial descendants make up the majority of the population. However, in sub-Saharan Africa

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 8 of 15

all tribes have migrated, evolved and mixed continuously throughout history and did not

arrive from a different continent or colonize territories.

On one hand the Khoe and Sān assert that they were the first peoples to inhabit South

Africa and that the Ntu groups only migrated into South Africa later in history. They are

hoping that “first nations” status will lift them out of the oppressive position they currently

hold in society. However, the Ntu did not colonize or formally claim territories. There were no

countries or borders at the time of the migrations which happened gradually over the span of

thousands of years. Furthermore the Ntu intermingled with the Khoe and Sān. Most Ntu today

have some percentage of Khoe or Sān ancestry, especially the Xhosa whose language

contains 15% Sān vocabulary.

Some proponents of the Indigenous Peoples Movement have called for DNA testing to

prove that the Khoe and Sān were the first inhabitants of South Africa, and to determine who

should be eligible to receive first nations status. However, DNA testing proves to be a

challenge when, scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as pure race or pure ethnicity.

The Khoe and Sān were the first humans to exist,⁶ and that also means scientifically that the

entire world’s population is descendent from them,²⁶ including the Ntu and European

colonialists. Interestingly, this quest for genetic purity is ominously reminiscent of Apartheid-

era colonialist obsessions with racial purity.

The exclusive and hierarchical notion of “first nations” and genetic purity goes against

the decolonization principles of pan-Africanism and non-racialism. Much of contemporary

African politics has been dominated by discussions about the removal of European-imposed

principles such as borders, racial categories, ethnic conflicts and hierarchies. Pan-Africanism is

based on the belief that all Africans and African descendants should unite, and that unity will

bring power to Africans and end hundreds of years of horrifying oppression, violence and

poverty. Non-racialist proponents believe that the concept of race itself is an intrinsically

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 9 of 15

hierarchical social construct of European invention that has only caused oppression,

destruction and division among Africans. For these proponents, the Khoe and Sān identity is

more about cultural affinity than genetic purity, since someone of higher Khoe percentage

could be living an English-speaking Western life, while someone of supposedly lower Khoe

percentage could be living an authentic traditional lifestyle. Some academics go as far as to

say that the concept of being “indigenous” is a degrading and oppressive term created by

Europeans who looked down on non-Europeans as being primitive savages.²⁷

The inspiration for the Indigenous Peoples Movement of South Africa is largely based

off the indigenous peoples of the Americas. This is no surprise as America continues to

dominate global media and academia. The term “first nations” comes from Canada, which the

British used to refer to indigenous peoples when they established treaties in the late 1800s.²⁸

“First nations” status has not offered much benefit to indigenous Canadians who continue to

face oppression. Perhaps the term “first nations” feels more appropriate in the case of the

Khoe and Sān, since terms such as “indigenous” or “aboriginal” are somewhat ambiguous in

Africa’s situation. Nevertheless, it is much easier to determine who is indigenous and who is

not in a country where the European colonialists make up the majority of the population. The

American situation would look very different if the Sioux, Cherokee and Navajo were

competing for “first nations” status amongst each other.

The African Union has endorsed the African Commission on Human and Peoples’

Rights which wrote a report defining the concept of “indigenous” within African context. It

explicitly states that in post-colonial Africa, “indigenous” does not mean “first habitants in a

country”. Instead, it refers to people who are “geographically isolated,” whose “cultures and

ways of life differ considerably from the dominant society…[and] are under threat,” and who

are “subjected to domination and exploitation within national political and economic

structures that…reflect the interests and activities of the national majority.”² This definition,

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 10 of 15

which acknowledges that “all Africans are indigenous to Africa,”² is much more logical within

the context of Africa. If the Indigenous Peoples Movement aligned themselves with this

definition and sought recognition as a marginalized minority, as opposed to demanding first

nations status, they might be taken more seriously by the South African government and

people.

The second major conflict within the movement is with regard to the Colored people.

The Colored population is known today as a group of creolized mixed-race peoples

descendant from indigenous Khoe and Sān, slaves from Indonesia, India and Madagascar, and

European colonialists of Dutch, Portuguese, French and British descent.²⁹ The Afrikaans

language itself, although known widely as a predominantly white near-Dutch language, had

its roots in the Khoe peoples of the Cape who created a creole language which was later

whitewashed and standardized.³⁰ Of the 5.5 million Colored people,¹⁸ “up to 2.5 million…

would identify themselves as Khoi or San,” but until recently “the opportunity for these

peoples to explore their roots has been compromised…by the disruptions of Apartheid.”¹

Under Apartheid everyone labeled as “Colored” shared the same geographical territories and

social status, which was considered superior to blacks but inferior to whites.

The problem here is that there is no way to tell which Colored person is Khoe or Sān

and which is not. Many Colored people feel that their culture and identity was robbed of them

when they were forcibly categorized as “Colored”, and want to reclaim their African roots by

re-establishing themselves as Khoe or Sān. Though, many Ntu feel that Colored people are

“impure” because of their European-influenced culture and genes. Some Ntu shudder at the

possibility that European descendants should be given preferential “first nations” status while

they as Africans would be considered aliens on their own African land. Once again, the

concept of DNA testing is called upon, which raises a myriad of questions and concerns. What

further complicates the matter is that Colored people were given preferential treatment

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 11 of 15

under Apartheid, such as employment and land ownership benefits. The “Bantu” tribes were

given “Native” status under Apartheid, which was a lower category in the regime’s

socioeconomic hierarchy. Members of the Ntu tribes bring up the notion that many

ethnoambiguous people chose to be classified as “Colored” because it was a more beneficial

status than “Native”. They feel that those who denied “Native” status to benefit from the

Apartheid hierarchy should not demand “first nations” status under the new South African

government. Furthermore “Colored” people have historically been culturally closer to the

white Afrikaner population due to shared language and culture. Colored people speak

Afrikaans which, for many Africans, has become a symbol of Apartheid and oppression. Some

Coloreds are even culturally arrogant or racist, clinging to the notion of European superiority

and looking down at African ways. Though, many Coloreds feel that their culture and identity

was robbed of them when they were forcibly categorized as “Colored” and indoctrinated with

European language and culture. They have always been an ethnic minority, first under the

Apartheid government and now under the new South African government. Modern Colored

communities are ridden with gang violence, poverty, addiction and abuse. Some feel that

black South Africans “despite their inferior social and legal position under Apartheid, could

still feel a sense of superiority over the Colored, given the latter’s truncated and deracinated

heritage.”¹

It is clear that many Colored people want to reclaim the cultural identity that was

stripped of them during Apartheid and colonial times. They want to become kawa-Khoe and

form part of a Khoe Renaissance. The assimilated Colored people vastly outnumber the

remaining traditional Khoe and Sān tribes, and furthermore the Coloreds are formally

educated people with greater power in the economy, politics and media. A Khoe Renaissance

could prove indispensable to the moribund Khoe and Sān cultures, ensuring that these

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 12 of 15

peoples are protected by the South African government. Perhaps the only reason Ntu people

are opposed to the kawa-Khoe identity is because of the demand for “first nations” status.

It is clear that the lasting damages of colonization and Apartheid still exist both

systematically and psychologically. The interactions of a wide variety of cultural groups from

around the world has changed the face of South Africa forever, with irreversible impacts on

the Khoe and Sān. A complicated entanglement of historic events has blurred many lines,

including Khoe and Sān identities. Despite the challenges it is entirely possible for the

Indigenous Peoples Movements to succeed in its demands for official recognition,

reparations, awareness and conservation. However, the major conflicts hindering the

movement need to be addressed before it can move forward as a serious unified power.

The largest roadblock relating to all the fractures within this movement comes down

to the demand for “first nations” status. Thus far, the demands for “first nations” status has not

been taken seriously on a national or international level. “First nations” is a North American

term which does not guarantee better treatment since indigenous populations in the

Americas continue to face oppression and marginalization despite their status. Furthermore

the concept of “first nations” is not really applicable in Africa and goes against the ACHPR’s

definition of indigeneity in Africa which refers to isolated and marginalized minorities rather

than “first inhabitants”. Lastly, the demand for “first nations” status resulted in many Ntu

opposing the Colored peoples’ adoption of a kawa-Khoe identity. To address these issues the

Indigenous Peoples Movement should establish themselves as marginalized minority tribes as

per the ACHPR definition, and demand to receive the same treatment as other majority

African tribes. This would gather sympathy both from the government and the larger

population who would support the movement and ensure that their demands are met.

The second roadblock is the political fragmentation of the movement. Many Colored

kawa-Khoe groups use the term “Khoisan” to name their kings and political bodies, but

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 13 of 15

“Khoisan” is not a term used by the Khoe or Sān peoples. It is an erroneous European umbrella

term that has been discontinued in academia. The “Khoisan Revolution Party” and the men

claiming to be “Khoisan” kings should rename themselves accordingly. The Colored peoples

looking to reclaim their indigenous identity need to familiarize themselves with the distinct

ethnolinguistic tribes instead of claiming to be part of an ambiguous umbrella identity of

“Khoisan”. Furthermore, the pluralism of multiple Khoisan kings needs to be addressed. These

groups should at the very least acknowledge and recognize each other’s legitimacy. A

unification would make a much stronger political presence. The movement should also

establish cooperation and relationships with the South African government rather than

attempting to self-declare sovereignty or secession, since these actions of defiance are merely

ridiculed and have no real impact.

The third change that needs to be made is the removal of the concept of genetic

purity. The movement should allow all descendants to claim their heritage since increased

numbers can only benefit an ethnic minority whose cultures and languages lie on the brink of

extinction. Whether these descendants are Colored or Ntu, what should matter is the shared

cultural and linguistic heritage.

When the Indigenous Peoples Movement of South Africa focuses on achieving its

goals of combating systematic oppression, rather than fighting within itself, it will achieve

much greater success. Relinquishing the demand for “first nations” status and accepting the

ACHRP’s definition of indigeneity in Africa will gain wider support and acceptance.

Unification, recognition and support among fragmented political groups will ensure a

stronger political force that will be respected by the government. Furthermore welcoming

kawa-Khoe descendants hoping to reclaim their Khoe and Sān roots will provide the

movement with strength in numbers. Solidarity will be a determining factor for the

movement’s progress and success.

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 14 of 15

Bibliography:

1. Lee, R.B. (2003). Indigenous rights and the politics of identity in post-apartheid southern Africa. At
the risk of being heard: Identity, indigenous rights, and postcolonial states, pp. 80-111. An exploration
of how the modern “Khoisan” identity has been formed by both historic colonial and Apartheid forces,
and the Khoe Khoe and San tribes themselves.


2. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Working Group on Indigenous Populations/
Communities in Africa. ACHPR. Updated 2017. https://www.achpr.org/specialmechanisms/detail?id=10


3. Indigenous. (a.) In Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/

indigenous


4. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Indigenous Peoples in South Africa. IGWIA.
Updated September 12, 2011. Accessed May 15, 2020. https://www.iwgia.org/en/south-africa/722-
indigenous-peoples-in-south-africa.html


5. Walsham How, Marion. The Mountain Bushmen of Basutoland. Pretoria: L. Van Schaik Ltd; 1962


6. Cole, Diane. The Khoisan Once Were The Kings Of The Planet, What Happened? NPR.
December 22, 2014. Accessed May 15, 2020. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/
2014/12/22/371672272/the-khoisan-once-were-kings-of-the-planet-what-happened


7. Marutle, Puleng. “Khoisan Religion”. Updated June 3, 2014. Prezi Presentation. Accessed May
15, 2020.


8. Nolitji, Pulekaja (2020, June 10). Personal interview. 


9. Cartwright, Mark. Bantu Migration. Ancient History Encyclopedia. April 11, 2019. Accessed May
15 2020. https://www.ancient.eu/Bantu_Migration/


10. Vigne, R., Cobbing, J, et al. South Africa. Encyclopæedia Britannica. June 7, 2020. Accessed
May 15, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/place/South-Africa


11. Marks, Shula. Southern Africa. Encyclopæedia Britannica. December 18, 2019. Accessed May
15, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/place/Southern-Africa


12. van Niekerk, G. Criminal justice at the Cape of Good Hope in the seventeenth century: narratives
of infanticide and suicide. Fundamina. 2005;135(19)


13. Hartmut, Lang. The Population Development of the Rehoboth Basters. Anthropos. 93 (4./6.):
381-391. JSTOR 40464838


14. Henry, Natasha. Slavery Abolition Act. Encyclopædia Britannica. May 05, 2020. Accessed May
15, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Slavery-Abolition-Act 


15. Marks, Shula. Southern Africa, 1899-1945. Encyclopæedia Britannica. December 18, 2019.
Accessed May 15, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/place/Southern-Africa


16. Understanding Slavery. The Human Zoo. Understanding Slavery Initiative. 2011. Accessed May
15, 2020 http://www.understandingslavery.com/index.php-
option=com_content&view=article&id=385&Itemid=241.html?
fbclid=IwAR2LgyKR32kYuERYgTk6OE4PF_a6d-KiKLyM8RjxMyfoFvXZo8kA4kgVR-0 


17. Marks, Shula. European and African Interaction in the 19th Century. Encyclopæedia Britannica.
December 18, 2019. Accessed May 15, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/place/Southern-Africa
* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 

† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”
 de Koker Page 15 of 15

18. Secorun, Laura. South Africa’s First Nations Have Been Forgotten. Foreign Policy. October 19,
2018. Accessed May 15, 2020. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/19/south-africas-first-nations-have-
been-forgotten-apartheid-khoisan-indigenous-rights-land-reform/ 


19. Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act 3 of 2019


20. ANA Reporter. Ramaphosa signs traditional and Khoi San leadership Bill into law. IOL. November
28, 2019. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/ramaphosa-signs-traditional-and-
khoi-san-leadership-bill-into-law-38128763

21. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

22. News24. Defiant Khoisan Group Swears in their Own Leader of SA. News24. May 08, 2019.
Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.news24.com/elections/news/defiant-khoisan-group-swears-in-their-
own-leader-of-sa-20190508

23. Cilliers, Charles. Khoi-San king declares that the Cape has seceded from SA. The Citizen. July
17, 2018. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/1982550/khoi-san-king-
declares-that-the-cape-has-seceded-from-sa/

24. Besent, Mercedes. Parliament will not entertain Khoisan eviction stunt. SABC News. July 19,
2018. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/parliament-will-not-entertain-
khoisan-eviction-stunt/

25. Ethnologue. Xhosa. Ethnologue Languages of the World. Accessed 25 May, 2020. https://
www.ethnologue.com/language/xho

26. Gibbons, Ann. Dwindling African tribe may have been most populous group on planet. Science
Magazine. December 4, 2014. Accessed 25 May, 2020. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/
dwindling-african-tribe-may-have-been-most-populous-group-planet

27. Hodgson, D. Becoming Indigenous in Africa. African Studies Review. 2009;52(3), 1-32.

28. Language Matters. Native American, First Nations or Aboriginal?. Druide. December, 2016.
Accessed 25 May, 2020. https://www.druide.com/en/reports/native-american-first-nations-or-aboriginal
29. de Wit, E; Delport, W; Rugamika, CE; Meintjes, A; Möller, M; van Helden, PD; Seoighe, C; Hoal,
EG. Genome-wide analysis of the structure of the South African Coloured Population in the Western
Cape. Human Genetics. August 2012:128: 145–53. doi:10.1007/s00439-010-0836-1. PMID 20490549.

30. Willemse, Hein. More than an oppressor’s language: reclaiming the hidden history of Afrikaans.
The Conversation. April 27, 2017. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://theconversation.com/more-than-an-
oppressors-language-reclaiming-the-hidden-history-of-afrikaans-71838

* the Khoekhoewab translation of “Neo-Khoi”, where “kawa” means“new” in Khoekhoewab 


† “Ntu” has been adopted as a more accurate term as opposed to “Bantu”