238 Leslé Jansen and Rayna Sutherland
Rooibos farming communities (who fall under the larger Khoikhoi component).
A division therefore existed between the cultural communities and the resourcebased communities living with Rooibos. Managing this division, between these
different groups, needed constant attention. What connects them is that they
are all bound by the apartheid typology of being forcibly labelled “Coloured”.
This was in addition to apartheid’s cruelty and systemic violence, a massive
de-Africanisation process. The fundamental identity and existence as an organised Indigenous nation are so far altered; it made their claim as TK holders to
the uses of Rooibos a most unbelievable claim to both government and industry
alike. Their traditional institutions faced constant battles within fights that were
not theirs, but they had to pay for through the proposed Traditional and KhoiSan Leadership Act 3 of 2019 (TKLA). This piece of legislation finally recognised
their communities and their leadership as part of the state system, on par with
other cultural communities. Despite the significance of this legislative change
for the Khoikhoi and San, it was met with widespread controversy. It is argued
that the TKLA premises governance as aligned with colonial and apartheid laws,
in how it presents “jurisdiction over land for traditional authorities in the former Bantustans” and thus retains “apartheid created structures and boundaries”
which structure traditional leadership’s accountability to the state as opposed to
its people (Mzwakali, 2019). However, this struggle to rectify imperfect legislation was beyond the fight of the Khoikhoi and instead, the controversy threatened the necessary inclusion the Act offered the Khoikhoi communities who had
long been excluded from South Africa’s constitutional system.
What complicated their claim further was the fact that they were not on the
land. Confusion surrounded the idea of what it meant to want to claim one’s
rights as TK holders. It was largely assumed to mean a farming issue; however,
it was not. Therefore, communities were being critiqued for saying that they do
not live in the Cederberg, on the land where Rooibos grows. If it were the case
that it was indeed a farming issue and a claim tied to being on the land in which
Rooibos is endemic, it would only be the Cederberg communities that could
make this claim. The question became: why would communities, living in different parts of South Africa, all have a claim as TK holders? They are not on the
land; the Cederberg farming communities are looking after Rooibos.
Brewing beneath it all, the fundamental difficulty with the claim was the communities’ assimilationist identity of being labelled “Coloured”. The communities,
labelled as “Coloured”, have been the victims of a deep de-Africanising process.
Consequently, they became viewed as not “legitimately” African. Their place
at the South African table was not secured and they were left at the margins of
the mainstay of South Africa. Their history, like that of many others, is fraught
with complexities. One of those complexities is that the Khoikhoi people were
forcibly labelled “Coloured”. The communities coming forward as part of the
Khoikhoi Indigenous resurgence movement are viewed as opportunistic and charlatans. However, there’s more to the story, so much more. One piece of this story
is that many people labelled “Coloured” were actively part of the anti-apartheid
Rooibos farming communities (who fall under the larger Khoikhoi component).
A division therefore existed between the cultural communities and the resourcebased communities living with Rooibos. Managing this division, between these
different groups, needed constant attention. What connects them is that they
are all bound by the apartheid typology of being forcibly labelled “Coloured”.
This was in addition to apartheid’s cruelty and systemic violence, a massive
de-Africanisation process. The fundamental identity and existence as an organised Indigenous nation are so far altered; it made their claim as TK holders to
the uses of Rooibos a most unbelievable claim to both government and industry
alike. Their traditional institutions faced constant battles within fights that were
not theirs, but they had to pay for through the proposed Traditional and KhoiSan Leadership Act 3 of 2019 (TKLA). This piece of legislation finally recognised
their communities and their leadership as part of the state system, on par with
other cultural communities. Despite the significance of this legislative change
for the Khoikhoi and San, it was met with widespread controversy. It is argued
that the TKLA premises governance as aligned with colonial and apartheid laws,
in how it presents “jurisdiction over land for traditional authorities in the former Bantustans” and thus retains “apartheid created structures and boundaries”
which structure traditional leadership’s accountability to the state as opposed to
its people (Mzwakali, 2019). However, this struggle to rectify imperfect legislation was beyond the fight of the Khoikhoi and instead, the controversy threatened the necessary inclusion the Act offered the Khoikhoi communities who had
long been excluded from South Africa’s constitutional system.
What complicated their claim further was the fact that they were not on the
land. Confusion surrounded the idea of what it meant to want to claim one’s
rights as TK holders. It was largely assumed to mean a farming issue; however,
it was not. Therefore, communities were being critiqued for saying that they do
not live in the Cederberg, on the land where Rooibos grows. If it were the case
that it was indeed a farming issue and a claim tied to being on the land in which
Rooibos is endemic, it would only be the Cederberg communities that could
make this claim. The question became: why would communities, living in different parts of South Africa, all have a claim as TK holders? They are not on the
land; the Cederberg farming communities are looking after Rooibos.
Brewing beneath it all, the fundamental difficulty with the claim was the communities’ assimilationist identity of being labelled “Coloured”. The communities,
labelled as “Coloured”, have been the victims of a deep de-Africanising process.
Consequently, they became viewed as not “legitimately” African. Their place
at the South African table was not secured and they were left at the margins of
the mainstay of South Africa. Their history, like that of many others, is fraught
with complexities. One of those complexities is that the Khoikhoi people were
forcibly labelled “Coloured”. The communities coming forward as part of the
Khoikhoi Indigenous resurgence movement are viewed as opportunistic and charlatans. However, there’s more to the story, so much more. One piece of this story
is that many people labelled “Coloured” were actively part of the anti-apartheid