Assignment 2
Question 1
Essay theme : Contestations around indigenous peoples and their knowledge. 1. Discuss the challenges Khoe-San in southern Africa have faced in reclaiming their indigenous identities and their rights to territory and resources.

Introduction
This essay I will aim to highlight how the Khoisan group “continue in post-Apartheid South Africa to struggle for the protection of their key collective and human rights as distinct ethnic communities as stipulated by the standards set out by the UN about indigenous people” (Hitchcock 2002). The Khoe and San are still not officially recognized and statistics does not show their presence in South Africa. The Khoisan are made up of five main groupings, namely San, Griqua, Nama, Koranna and the Cape Khoi. However there is no precise number of Khoisan people that currently live in South Africa (Hitchcock 2002). The Khoisan are not constitutionally recognized as Indigenous communities. “The current legal institutions continue to classify them as “Coloureds” just like the apartheid regime did” (Barnard 1992). The San people also called Bushmen, or Basarwa all considered pejorative to some degree are members of various indigenous hunter-gatherer peoples of Southern Africa, whose territory spans Botswana, Namibia, Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa (Barnard 1992). There is a significant linguistic difference between them. The definition for indigenous people is a broad one and is defined differently according to people and organizations, but generally “indigenous people are those that have historically belonged to a particular region or country, before its colonization or transformation into a nation state, and may have different often unique cultural, linguistic, traditional, and other characteristics to those of the dominant culture of that region or state” (Barnard 1992).

Ancestral land conflict in Botswana
Since the mid-1990s, the San were forced out of their land by the central government of Botswana which used a relocation policy they came up with, which aimed at moving the San out of ǃXam Khomani Heartland, their ancestral land on and near the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR), into a foreign land called New Xade ( Taylor 2007). The government however came up with reasons on why they were moving the San from their ancestral land which were, some of the San people wish to be agriculturists and having livestock and no more hunting and gathering ( Taylor 2007). Also that the San people way of living was not contradictory to those of the Game Reserve which aimed at sustainability with preserving wildlife resources. This was the main reason for government to relocate the CKGR residents. However the government denied any forced removal ( Taylor 2007). The relocation policy was to serve the government and all those that seemed to gain from this, it is evident that the removal of the San people was for tourist trade and diamond mining which would make them a lot of money ( Taylor 2007). The disregard for human life and the rights of the indigenous people was taken for granted in this regard. It is not the first time that indigenous people are treated as if they do not exist, their right for territory is always been undermined ( Taylor 2007). After the government successfully moved the San people to New Xade the government did not do any follow up and try to help them, people suffered in poverty. While in their old ancestral land they could provide for themselves through hunter-gathering and their familiarity of the land helped with gathering food ( Taylor 2007).
Court decision
The government lost the long running much anticipated court case against the San on 13 December 2006. According to the San's lawyer Gordon Bennett, “Nobody thought the Bushmen had any rights before their court victory” ( Taylor 2007). “Nobody even cared”. By a 2–1 majority the court ruled against the refusal to give the Basarwa a permit into the CKGR and give them a hunting license ( Taylor 2007).
It also found that the San were "forcibly and wrongly deprived of their possessions" by the government ( Taylor 2007). However the court did not compel the government to supply the San who returned to the reserve with basic resources and aid, which I find the court still failing the San, the lack of representation of the San shows. How are they suppose to function without necessary basic needs if their government does not include them as citizens of Botswana ( Taylor 2007). Why should they be outcasts in their own land.
High Court appeal
On 27 January 2011, the San won an appeal against the government in the Botswana High Court after they initially were denied access to drinking water inside the Reserve through bore holes (Taylor 2007). Barrister Gordon Bennett represented the San in court as the judges declared the Botswana government guilty of ‘degrading treatment’ and described the case as a human violation towards the people, thus ordering the government to pay the costs of the San's appeal (Taylor 2007).
There are also some other disturbing cases of human rights violation against the San by the Botswana government, like the eviction order to create a wildlife corridor known as the Western Kgalagadi Conservation Corridor ( Taylor 2007). This once again shows the disregard for Sans as human beings in Botswana. The government came up a plan to keep the San lawyer which had made the San people win 3 court cases against the Botswana government away from entering Botswana, placed him on a visa list which prevented him from entering the country until he obtains a visa ( Taylor 2007).
It is evident that the San are not treated like other groups of people in Southern Africa because they are always victims of those who are supposed to treat everyone in a country equally. Also we see how international donors and companies use the San for their own gain. An anthological example that demonstrate how San knowledge is being exploited, their discovery of Hoodia gordinii which the San have been using to suppress hunger and thirst. There was an agreement with a pharmaceutical company called Phytopharm in which a license was granted for development of the active ingredient in the Hoodia plant to be used as a pharmaceutical drug for dieting (Taylor 2007). Once this patent was brought to the attention of the San, a benefit-sharing agreement was reached between them and the CSIR in 2003. This would award royalties to the San for the benefits of their indigenous knowledge (Taylor 2007). During the case, the San people were represented and assisted by the Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa (WIMSA), the South African San Council and the South African San Institute (Taylor 2007).
This benefit-sharing agreement is one of the first to give royalties to the holders of traditional knowledge used for drug sales. The San have yet to profit from this agreement, as P57 has still not yet been legally developed and marketed ( Taylor 2007). Khomani San Land Claim and Division
Khomani San (collective term for the group of San that has been identified as the dominant San group in the southern Kalahari since the 1920s) are part of a group of distinct San tribes inhabiting the southern area of the vast Kalahari ecosystem ( Robins 2001).
The consequences of the open land claim should not be underestimated. It seems as if in general the Khomani San cherish a shared vision of a developed, peaceful and sustainable community on the land they rightfully claimed back ( Robins 2001). This shared vision has become distorted by the different approaches towards the utilization and management of the land by the more traditional Khomani San members (the original claimants) and those who were exposed to modern practices and ideas (those who were invited) ( Robins 2001).
It also became evident that parts of the community welcome the involvement of external parties, while others are of the opinion that these are the cause of community division. The role of the Communal Property Association and the traditional Khomani San leaders’ involvement in management and decision-making processes causes further division and discord ( Robins 2001). There are serious divisions within the community, most particularly between the original claimants and their traditional leadership, and those that joined the land claim and who have a more ‘modern’ outlook. There is the threat of a formal split between the community ( Robins 2001). Theere have been reports by the Cape Times of conflict , homicide, suicide , alcohol abuse, Aids and social fragmentation. It has also been reported allegations of financial mismanagement by the Khomani San CPA and divisive leadership struggles ( Robins 2001). The intra-community tension which is between the traditionalists and western bushmen are proving to be hard to curb. This conflict is due to the different ideas these two groups hold and their way of life. This tension raised a year after the successful land claim which attracted a lot of NGO’s and donors both local and international. Which brought different ideas and ways of doing things ( Robins 2001). We can assume that this has had an impact in the traditionalists and western modernized bushmen which in turn is coursing division. Therefore there is no solidarity and unity towards them ( Robins 2001). When a group of people which had the same ideas and goals for their community now believe in a different way of doing things that breaks unity and solidarity which hinders peace and development ( Robins 2001). Also the values and practices of civil societies need to be examined at this point as to figure out whether they have shaped the Khomani both during and after the land claim. The shift is however evident with regards to San identity , community and tradition. When there are many people stirring a pot something wrong is bound to happen, the food will not taste as its supposed to ( Robins 2001). In this case that is exactly what happened, too much interference from different donors and NGO’s has contributed to the division between traditionalist and western bushmen ( Robins 2001).
The other problem that San people face is the lack of knowledge people actually have about them and the ethnocentric views which promote the bad treatment towards them. We see government , donors , companies and NGO’s ( Francis & Francis 2010). Some organizations treat the San people as tourist attraction and use them. They view the San as inferior primitive people different from everyone else. In Botswana the community of the Basawra was not supplied with polling stations for them to vote, but when the government was doing a census of everyone in Botswana they refused to be counted because they saw it as an insult ( Francis & Francis 2010). They are allowed to vote and exercise their human right which they rightfully didn’t take part in the. Also big international companies are taking advantage of the San’s indigenous knowledge which they rob and exploit them because at the end of the day their knowledge is not accounted for ( Francis & Francis 2010). The NGO and government which suppose to be aware of such exploitation and shield the San from all that do not. The San have great knowledge of plants treating sicknesses and crafts but all that is not used for their benefit but for the benefit of people who don’t see them as equal to them. The San live in extreme poverty and are not enjoying governments resources that other ethnic group of people are getting( Francis & Francis 2010). There is so much struggle and suffering in the San communities all around Southern Africa, they are still fighting for their place to be accepted and treated equally to others. The world should stop expecting the San to live the way they see is right and acceptable, leave them to practice their tradition and give them the land they feel comfortable in living ( Francis & Francis 2010). They should be accepted to live the way they wish to and not how everybody else is living. Their future must be determined by them and not by anyone else who does not understand their way of living ( Francis & Francis 2010). The government, donors and NGO’s should help and aid the San with necessary resources to ensure their existence and stop the ill treatment and exploitation ( Francis & Francis 2010).

Conclusion According to Bernard, the largest genomic study ever conducted among Khoe and San groups reveals that these groups from southern Africa are descendants of the earliest diversification event in the history of all humans -- some 100,000 years ago, well before the 'out-of-Africa' migration of modern humans (Barnard 2007). Such rich history of the San, why then not treasure and treat them well. In South Africa the term Ubuntu is very much well known, politicians , celebrities , church ministers preach it all the time but one must wonder why it does not include the San people. I have never seen any charities doing something for the San. Even in our media there is nothing being said about the San. We hardly even see representation of San’s. It’s like San people do not exist in this world. I hate that all they are portrayed to be good at is being tourists attraction. This violation and bad treatment should stop, the government must also take care of the san, ensure their development. The notion of San being primitive should stop, people need to stop having ethnocentric views towards them and see them as the great wise people they are. The NGO’ and donors need to give the San people a voice and stop pushing their own agenda’s. They need to help them be develop in their own terms and have equal rights just like everyone else. Exploitation of San knowledge needs to stop. As a country we need to accept the San as being part of us, our bill of rights speaks as if it includes everyone but it does not, our constitution needs to include and protect the San. They too should enjoy service delivery just like everyone else. They should not have to move to cities to be exposed to human basic rights like education, health care, safety and security all these things should be made available to them in their own communities.