PROGRAMA DE MODIFICACIÓN DE CONDUCTA

I ended my discussion of the Mamre land claim in the last chapter by arguing that describing Chief Johannes as a ‘strategic essentialist’ would not help explain his motivations or desires. As I believe that an understanding of this land claim requires examining Chief Johannes’ motivations and taking them seriously, I use this section to show the ‘other’ side of the story. As soon as I met Chief Johannes, I realized that his struggle involved both a search for historical evidence in light of the bureaucratic nature of land claims, and a strong feeling about Khoisan history, coloured identity, and local politics. He did not go off-topic when he talked about these issues but did exactly the opposite.

Walking with him through the idyllic surroundings of Mamre, I could not help but feel that he has a very emotional connection to the place and its history. When I asked him what motivated him to be busy with his land claim, he would often start by saying how disappointed he was with the government (which he at one time described as “realtors”, David Johannes, Anna, Michael, IRASA, 02/01/2015), especially at the local level. When the CPA was created, Chief Johannes seemed to have high hopes, especially since Nkwinti had promised that the land that was given back to the citizens of Mamre (see Chapter Three) was “just the beginning of full recognition of the Khoi and San descendants” (Besent 2013). Indeed, the CPA was not destined to have the typical bad relationship with traditional authorities regarding land (Robins & van der Waal 2010: 164-166) as it theoretically has the powers to evict or relocate the current inhabitants of Louwskloof. But even while some members have sympathies for Chief Johannes’ struggle, the poor organizational state of the CPA precludes it from even considering relocations or removals at this moment (Marie, CPA Mamre, 22/01/2015). He was then disappointed when he felt that the CPA did not take the Khoisan issue seriously. He experienced some unpleasant confrontations with them, and his group was ultimately excluded from the process (David Johannes, 28/01/2015).

While the 2014 Heritage Day celebrations at Mamre focused on its Khoisan history, there seems to be little interest in Mamre about matters Khoisan (Marie, CPA Mamre, 22/01/2015). Its history as a mission settlement seems to be more omnipresent, as the church grounds (including some of the ancient buildings) were declared part of the national heritage in 1967

(De Boer & Temmers 1987: 38). For Chief Johannes, however, people in Mamre would appreciate becoming ‘part’ of the “Cochoqua tribe” as he intends to use the land he claims both to cultivate crops for local consumption and to set up a heritage site celebrating Khoisan history to attract tourists (David Johannes, 18/12/2014). He and his family would, however, move back to Louwskloof, where his ancestors are buried (Ibid.). Solely creating a heritage site in Mamre, would then not suffice for Chief Johannes.

Another strong motivating force is his conviction that the history of the Cochoqua is not being taken seriously or being distorted by the government. When showing me the local graveyard, for example, he regretted that the government did not even put up a sign indicating that “Khoisan chiefs were buried there” (David Johannes, 21/09/2014). He also struggles with the fact that some claim that there was a training camp of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) - the military wing of the ANC - at Louwskloof during the 1960s and 70s, and that his family was supposedly evicted on suspicion of their involvement with the camp (Marie, CPA Mamre, 22/01/2015). Moreover, the ANC is said to be interested in turning Louwskloof into a “site of remembrance,” as they say that it was in fact the first MK camp of South Africa (Ibid.). While ex-MK members mentioned a small clandestine camp at Louwskloof in the 1960s, it is a sizeable area and it is possible that the Johannes family did not know about their presence. Moreover, the first letter of eviction arrived in 1959, three years before the MK camp is said to have been set up, which only lasted for a few months according to the MK veterans in any case (Houston 2013: 7-8). “People would not laugh anymore, if they would realize how much ground we possessed historically,” Chief Johannes would then often say with a sense of pride (David Johannes, Anna, Michael, IRASA, 08/01/2015). He is specifically referring to the Cochoqua; an ethnic group whom he identified with already before conceptualizing land claims, as opposed to other cases where ethnic identities were thought to be formed during the restitution process (Ellis 2010: 185).

Recently, Chief Johannes has called in the help of IRASA, “for their expertise in cultural matters,” to expand his land claim at Louwskloof to include the whole “historical territory” of the Cochoqua (David Johannes, 18/12/2014). Moreover, a !Nau ceremony (see Chapter Three) was organized on 13 December 2014 in a rented out gymnasium in Atlantis where chiefs of each ‘historical kraal of the Cochoqua’ were sworn in as representatives of Chief Johannes, now inaugurated as Paramount Chief and head of the “Royal House” (see Figure 3). The Cochoqua are said to be one of the most powerful groups at the advent of

colonialism (Bredekamp & Newton-King 1984: 9). Similar to Louwskloof and the tribal affiliation of Chief Jantjie Klapmuts (see Chapter Three), however, the exact historical ‘boundaries’ of the Cochoqua are not as evident as they are made out to be in Figure 17 for historiographical reasons discussed in Chapter Two.159

Figure 17: Pamphlet distributed at the inauguration of Cochoqua chiefs (Author’s photograph)

159

Being a powerful ethnic group, the area where the Cochoqua were based at and moved around in with their herds is sure to be sizeable. The first ‘group’ of researchers argues that the Cochoqua territory stretched from Piketberg, over Riebeeck-Kasteel to Saldanha Bay and present-day Malmesbury (Nienaber 1989: 83). Others say they moved as far as the Olifants River (Bredekamp & Newton-King 1984: 9), temporarily moved as far as Beaufort-West after being displaced (hence the names ‘Cogmanskloof’ and ‘Cogmansriver’ in the area, or even possibly camped at the Orange River (Nienaber 1989: xxvi, 265). The alternative line of research suggests that the Cochcoqua occupied an area from roughly “north of the Cape Flats and south and west of the Berg River,” perhaps even occasionally grazing their cattle at Table Bay (Penn 2005: 31, see Figure 6).There seems to be consensus, however, that the Swartland and Saldanha Bay areas (which includes Mamre) formed the main base of the Cochoqua transhumance circle. For the Cochoqua activists involved, however, there was consensus that the rock art in the Cederberg and Bushmans Kloof was definitely that of the Cochoqua (see Chapter Three). Notice also the use of the words ‘Precolonial’ to stress cultural continuity

108

The !Nau ceremony was seen as “something which the NTAB will like,” which could impress local politicians, and the related land claim could be a tone setting example for exceptions to the 1913 cut-off date or a gateway to tourist projects for the West Coast (David Johannes, Anna, Michael, IRASA, 02/01/2015).It was a private event attended by roughly 100 people, without any media present. At the beginning of the event, a recording was played which talked about the history of the Johannes’ family dating back to Benigna (see Chapter Three), highlighting the historicity of the (land) claims. While the ceremony was thus also a way of putting something ‘on the record,’ it was a powerful “re-affirmation” of the Cochoqua and their historical “greatness” and an outlet of political frustration. I therefore wish to quote elements of the speeches and texts from the ceremony based on my field notes (13/12/2014) in some length:

“Sovereign Nomination David Johannes, the current Cochoqua paramount

chief has been appointed by his aunts, brothers and sisters by virtue of an

ancestral nomination. The Johannes family are in the direct bloodline of

Benigna who was the daughter of the 19th century Cochoqua paramount chief,

Jantjie Klapmuts [...], historically acknowledged as the most powerful

Aboriginal Khoisan Clan in the Western Cape. Unquestionably this is the most

celebrated event taking place in the Western Cape and South Africa since the

brutality of colonialism where the Aboriginal Khoisan was denied their

Aboriginal existence within their own Ancestral Country […] We the aboriginal

Khoisan did not forego nor compromise our identity to the enforcement of

brutal colonial laws which were wilfully instituted to totally eradicate our proud

and rich cultural heritage. As the aborigines of South Africa we have an

inextricable spiritual link to our ancestral land therefore it transcends the

exploitative nature of our colonial settlers.”

These excerpts are reflective of the indigenous rights discourse and cultural genocide narrative typical of Khoisan activists discussed in Chapter Three. Notice for example the frequent use of the terms ‘aboriginal’ and ‘ancestral,’ the reference to a spiritual relationship with land, and the claim of cultural continuity. As I have tried to show in this section, however, the !Nau celebrations also functioned as a way to uplift the psychological state of the (un)conscientized Khoisan and to mobilize them politically. As for Chief Johannes and his

family and friends, the occasion certainly also functioned as a powerful emotional experience. Understanding Khoisan claims to land then requires taking into account a multitude of factors and perspectives. The analysis in Chapter Three and the case studies discussed in this chapter then allow me to reflect on my main argument regarding Khoisan land activism in the concluding section of this chapter.

4.4 Unpacking Khoisan land claims. Land as a