Paternalism, ethnocide, epistemicide: Talking points for a propaganda campaign

16 May 2022

The Liesbeek Action Campaign condemns a seemingly coordinated effort to spread misinformation about objections to the development at the River Club, Observatory, Cape Town. Several personalities with ties to the Democratic Alliance and the Institute for Race Relations have voiced their opinions on the matter, repeating offensive falsehoods and attempting to cast doubt on the authenticity of the indigenous groups objecting to the development on sacred land.

Among those who have made false claims and deeply offensive remarks are Helen Zille, Sara Gon of the IRR, retired DA MP Mariann Shinn and Ivo Vegter, a columnist for IRR mouthpiece, the Daily Friend. Court papers show that former DA leader Tony Leon’s PR firm, Resolve Communications, was paid R2.5 million by Liesbeek Leisure Property Trust, the property developer now interdicted from building on the site. Besides a few propagandistic advertorials and social media ads that paint a rosy picture of the River Club development, we’re left to wonder what else that fee bought the developers.

It’s unclear whether these commentators truly believe the outlandish falsehood that this land was empty or that indigenous heritage has no value. What they argue is that we should trade our values for the promise of jobs from an international behemoth notorious for dodging taxes and creating unsafe, exploitative work environments.

Erasing indigenous histories and identities

During a discussion between Sara Gon of the IRR and David Ansara of the Centre for Risk Analysis, Gon repeatedly tried to cast doubt on the authenticity of the indigenous groups objecting to the development, and on the heritage value of the site. Instead, she backed the First Nations Collective, a small grouping who are set to benefit directly from the development. According to Gon’s version, the FNC has been around longer, and the other formations have “suddenly come up.”

The facts: There are at least 23 indigenous groups who have endorsed the campaign to oppose the development on a sacred floodplain. These groups have not “suddenly come up,” but have been active over decades in the Khoi re-emergence movement. In contrast, it is the FNC that miraculously appeared only in November 2019 after the developers were forced to ‘consult’ Khoi groups. What script is Gon reading from to make such a contrary claim?

In the online discussion, Ansara went on to say: “If you go far back enough in history, nobody owned this land. All of it was kind of virgin land.” Gon concurred and talked of “alleged cultural heritage sites”. This ‘empty land theory’ is historically inaccurate, wholly discredited and represents a continuation of colonial and apartheid myths used to dispossess indigenous people of land over centuries. It is deeply racist.

The facts: There is abundant evidence of indigenous connections to this piece of land going back centuries. It’s known to be of cultural and spiritual importance to past generations and continues to represent a place of deep significance to current generations of indigenous people. It’s known from European records and indigenous oral histories as a place for grazing cattle, and for social interaction, and was the site of the first attempted incursion by colonisers in 1510. In the Dutch colonial era, indigenous people were driven from this traditional grazing and watering place. This first frontier is, thus, Ground Zero for the genocide of the colonial period – the place of first resistance against Portuguese colonisers in 1510, and of the invasion by the Dutch in their wake. All of this is confirmed in the multiple reports in the court papers.

It is truly shameful that two white commentators pronounce in complete ignorance on the history of indigenous people.

Who speaks for the needs of indigenous people?

Zille, Shinn and Gon also seem to trot out the same arguments that we should be “humble” and invite corporations to invest in order to create jobs. They remind us all, as if talking to a classroom of children who don’t know what’s good for them, that it’s a trade-off. Says Gon: “…the least dignified situation to be in is unemployed and, increasingly, long-term unemployed.” Presumably the trade-offs are for the destruction of land that is sacred to indigenous people (a fact even confirmed even by the Mayor in his court affidavit) and that serves as a vital floodplain (this according to the City of Cape Town’s own appeal against the Environmental Authorisation).

It should be lost on no-one that this is an all-white bench of commentators pronouncing on ‘what’s best’ for indigenous people. Instead of these paternalistic, arrogant assumptions, they could take the trouble to listen to indigenous people, like the 61 groups that are seeking heritage status for the area and the many, many comments from indigenous people who signed a petition that’s collected over 73,000 signatures.

Jobs, yes. Here, no.

None of these commentators, nor Amazon – the intended anchor tenant – nor the developer have provided any reason why this particular site was chosen for this development. In fact, Amazon initially shortlisted five sites as suitable, which did not include the River Club, a site on a floodplain that complicates construction and requires infilling of a river with 220,000m3 of infill to support the 150 000 m2 of concrete footprint required. The decision to use the Liesbeek site and the permissions granted by authorities deserves careful investigation, especially considering objections raised on heritage, city planning and environmental grounds by multiple experts, including those in the City and Province.

Construction at one of the other five sites would still have provided construction jobs. An Amazon headquarters at one of the other five sites would still create the same cloud computing and call centre jobs. The commentators do their best to blame activists for stirring trouble and destroying jobs. In fact, it’s the developer who decided on this location and took on the risk of building here, despite, as Judge Goliath stated, their “knowledge that the development was strenuously contested.”

What the courts said

Several of the comments from DA- and IRR-linked personalities were made in response to the interdict and the subsequent denial of leave to appeal. The commentariat choose to defend the independence of the judiciary when it suits them, but when judicial decisions don’t go their way, voice their outrage.

They characterise Justice Goliath’s finding as “bending over backwards” to accommodate the indigenous groups but her actual words are worth considering: “The fact that the development has substantial economic, infrastructural and public benefits can never override the fundamental rights of First Nation Peoples.”

Far from the product of a left-wing plot, the judge actually stated: “The order of this court must not be construed as a criticism against the development … The core consideration is the issue of proper and meaningful consultation with all affected First Nations Peoples.”

Judge Goliath correctly recognised the egregious flaws in the initial consultation process, noted how some indigenous groups were deliberately side-lined, and characterised the heritage report commissioned by the developer as “tainted”.

The past and the future of the Liesbeek River

The LAC and its indigenous partners want to preserve the significance of this site as part of the national estate, a significance that cannot be determined by those whose comments are attempts at ethnocide (the destruction of culture) and epistemicide (the destruction of knowledge). We continue to call for an investigation into the approval processes that have allowed this profound injury to a site of immense historical, spiritual and environmental significance. And we will fight for the day when our people are able to commune with this land in ways of their own choosing.

By Liesbeek Action Campaign, 16 May 2022