Introductory Remarks

“Now it´s called a park.

Most of the Bushmen who worked here are out now.

I can call that all of the Bushmen are out now.”

(Interview Kleinman 2005)

“My heart lies in the park.

That is where I was born and I grew up.

There lies the culture and the tradition.

But I, Dawid, don´t have the right and the power to go in.”

(Interview Kruiper 2005 a)

The history of most indigenous groups is characterised by a drastic limitation of their right of access to land and natural resources. It is currently of utmost importance for them to identify the best combination of legislation, politics and governance-models and to implement them,

to improve their human rights situation and standard of living. This approach should result in the protection of living spaces, societies, economies and ecological processes, for our generation as well as for those to come. (cf. Hitchcock 2004: 202) Also in Africa, the land of their ancestors has been taken away from many indigenous groups, without them being in a position to claim their land rights, especially in those areas where the land was declared to be

“State Land“. The reason for this is that governments of Southern African countries did not respect the aboriginal property rights and in addition to that, countries like Botswana did not recognise their “Khoi” or “San” communities as their indigenous population. Another problem for indigenous groups in Southern Africa, fighting for their land and resources, is the discrepancy between wildlife conservation and development. The original land of the indigenes was taken by the national states to turn it into national parks, reservations or protected areas, or was placed under a preservation order. The conflicts resulting from this were nourished on the one hand, by the mostly governmental demand for a stricter protection of habitats, wild animals and resources and on the other hand, by the demand, usually favoured on a Grassroot Level, for a Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM), which allows the local population to profit from the natural resources. (cf.

Hitchcock 2004: 203 et seq.) This conflict between wildlife conservation and development is also omnipresent in the context of the KTP and the neighbouring local population, especially for the #Khomani. The park administration on the one hand, tries to implement strict nature protection measures and to limit human influence; on the other hand, they want to max out the tourist potential of the park. The #Khomani consider the park to be their aboriginal living space, which they want to be returned to, together with its resources. The opinions on the current situation, mirroring this conflict, could not be more contrasting. The needs of the

#Khomani, expressed by their Traditional Leader Dawid Kruiper, are clearly formulated:

“My wish is that concerning the park, nobody must tell me what to do. Not the Parks Board. Why does the Parks Board stop me when I want to go to the park and want to live traditionally? We actually want to live in the park.

Why must we ask? That´s my birth ground. And that is the core of the land claim.Why must I ask the park every time I want to go?” (Interview Kruiper 2005 a)

The park administration also has a very clear position in this matter; however, it is contrary to the needs mentioned above. The biggest problems the park administration would face if the

#Khomani were allowed to live in the park are summarised by Nico van der Walt in the

“I think it would be their natural way of living. They are hunting, I mean they are hunters and gatherers. You know we have got a Management Plan on game, how we handle the game and so on. So you´ll have tourism on the one side and then you have the hunter, gatherer - not the other side, but I think they would be all around.

And to control the management of the whole situation, I think that would have been quite a challenge. Tourists come here also. I think you have to, to use the word, `protect´ the conservation area as well. In a sense when somebody goes into a wilderness camp he doesn´t want to see any people around, and it might be a Bushman hunting, chasing an eland or something like that.” (Interview Van der Walt 2005)

However, in addition to those contrasting opinions, there are also voices to be heard who show that even in this tense situation there is a potential for compromise. Diedie Kleinman, one of only three members of the #Khomani Community working in the park, whose father Karel Vet Piet Kleinman²³ had already worked in the park and played an important role in its history, advocates a position which is currently neither shared by his own community nor by his employer. He militates against the #Khomani living in the park:

“I can see that most of our Bushmen at the moment now, there are too much people who are drinking and this is a wilderness place. And this generation, they didn´t know how to live in the wild without a gun, without a house, without nothing. And they won´t make it if they are here without nothing like motorcars, no donkey cars, nothing.

They won´t make it in this park because they didn´t suffer also like our forefathers and grandfathers did.”

(Interview Diedie Kleinman 2005)

According to Kleinman, the #Khomani should have access to the park without restrictions, to collect plants for nourishment or medical uses, to observe wild animals to teach their children

23 Karel Vet Piet Kleinman was born near Twee Rivieren and spent his entire life in the park, as only a few

#Khomani did. He was employed in the park until his retirement because of his excellent skills as a tracker and field ranger.Vet Piet was the most renowned Master Tracker in South Africa and even headed the ||uruke Tracking-Projekt of SASI. Togehter with Lui Livenberg he developed a Cyber Tracker System for illiterates, recording animal footprints with the help of pictograms. His tragic death in a car accident ment the loss of one of their main bearers of hope for the #Khomani Community. (Interview Flemming 2005) “Oom Vet Piet”, as he was called, was awarded the“Life Time Achievement Award” at the Kudu Awards posthum ously by SANParks on 29 June 2006. “The award given to acknowledge Oom Vet Piet’s lifetime commitment to his people and his park.” (sanparks 2008 b) Because of his skills he also performed in several documentaries and films. (cf. Van der Merve: „Little Tracker“ 2000)

the art of tracking and to enjoy the beauty of the national park as such. However, he speaks out against the re-introduction of hunting in the park:

“And for me, myself I could say that we could just maybe go to Upington and buy wild meat and if we want wild meat or to buy from the near farmers or so, but just leave the park as it is! Yeah. And just to show tourists that the Bushmen are still going on with their tracking and that the Bushmen are still getting medicine from the plants of the Kalahari, you see. Because if you are hunting in this park, you have to go by 4x4 in the dunes and you will damage most of our plants and that´s also, you don´t just damage the plants of the park but you also damage the scenery, the landscape of the park.” (Interview Kleinman 2005)

These three position and the ungratified needs connected to them regularly clash and create tensions and conflicts within the #Khomani Community as well as in their relationship with the park administration. The status quo in and around the KTP reflects the position of the park administration, which means, that many stakeholders are loosing out. Simultaneously the position of the park administration can be hardly challenged.