THERE has been an assortment of comments exploding from all and sundry the past two weeks regarding the latest changes that took effect after the recommendations (as per Chapter 12, Article 103 Subsection (1-2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia) of the 4th Delimitation Commission were made known by President Hifikepunye Pohamba.
To contextualize these annotations it remains imperative to dissect the central part of such in an objective manner based on empirical evidence without being immersed in trivial tribalist affinities which clearly have been the departing point of many counter arguments vis-à-vis these changes, namely the name changes of Caprivi to Zambezi region, Karas to //Karas region, Steinhausen constituency to Okarukambe constituency, Schuckmannsburg to Luhonono and Lüderitz to !Nami≠Nüs amongst other such changes. It is however the latter ‘Lüderitz to !Nami≠Nüs’ name change that had a plethora of views discharged by both locals of this town and citizens located in other parts of the country and some parts of Europe, in particular Germany. The sentiments churned out by mainstream media in particular journalists, editors, columnists and ‘political’ analysts had arguments narrowed to the economic impact of the name changes with no empirical evidence whatsoever and which to an extreme are rather biased through their respective articulations versus the ancestral, cultural and traditional heritage of the town.
For starters we must be honest in acknowledging that these sentiments currently brewing, bear all the hallmarks and undertones of the narrowest-tribalistic vents which spawn from the ethnic orientation of the name !Nami≠Nüs and the inverse proportional fear factor of the unknown that are normally associated with change. To avert the habitual boomerang of such undertones, it is paramount to locate this development in a historical context. History records that Bartolomeu Dias, a Portuguese sailor, in a quest to establish a route to India was the first European navigator to have anchored on the southern coast of Namibia in 1487, a part already travelled extensively by the !Aman people of the time. This bay he shall then name Angra Pequena (which in Portuguese means Small Bay). It was not until 1883, when one Heinrich Vogelsang, acting on behalf of German merchant Frans Adolf Lüderitz, (after which the town was later named Lüderitzbucht in his honour) bought the piece of land from Nama chief Joseph Frederiks II in 1886.
The notion echoing that a claim can’t be laid on !Nami≠Nüs by the indigenous people of the !Aman tribe, because of this sale not only is devoid of any rational substance but intends to defeat the course of history by arguing that such transaction abdicates the ancestral rights of the !Aman people from being the first inhabitants of such land. Quintessentially, this development forces us to interrogate a fundamental question as to the discontinuance of colonial names which are copious across Namibia and begs of us to provide an answer to the relevance of recognizing indigenous names in a contemporary Namibia. It speaks of a nation still grappling with an identity crisis, a true Namibian identity umbilically-tied to that of the indigenous peoples of this country. It further seeks from us to question the relevance of our education system that teaches us proudly about Greek mythology as opposed to literature that gives accounts of African humanness. It tells us of a youth immersed in neo-liberal culture so much so that the indigenous heritage appears repulsive and not so ‘cool’.
Also it reveals to us that the authorities entrusted to have open and regular debate with the masses that elected them into power are sheepishly folding their arms with “neutrality” and vague “miscommunication” justifications. This development speaks to traditional authorities and its leaders to galvanize the support of subjects falling under their jurisdictions in a healthy and transparent manner without bypassing the course of consultations. It also tells of a citizenry that uses ignorance as an excuse, which demonstrates apathy when it comes to consultative meetings of any kind – only to come after the nail is through the coffin. Such prognosis is incumbent upon each to prevent taking the fatal path so many other African nations in particular, have embarked upon in recent times.
The !Nami≠Nüs debate should not be viewed as an isolated event, but must be regarded as one that has set the stage for many future possible changes of colonial names not only restricted to towns or regions, but villages, streets and architecture of national importance which might follow suit, which clearly to the majority remains pigments of a bitter past. Vehemently repudiating the historical relevance and acceptance of the name change is tantamount to a people distancing themselves from defining factors of history and as a consequence dispel any positive threads attached with indigenous connotations.
• Benedick M Louw is a Youth and Rural Political Activist and //Karas SPYL Secretary for Information, Mobilization and Publicity.
NB! The views expressed herein do in no way reflect the position of the //Karas SPYL, but remain strictly the views of the author. www.benedicklouw.blogspot.com