Transformation elusive in fishing industry

THERE has been much meaningful transformation in South Africa, and for that, we are truly grateful.

We no longer need to carry the dreaded dompas, leave the leafy suburbs before sundown (or if you were Indian, leave the whole province of the Free State before sundown), or step off the pavement when a white person approaches.

We are now a constitutional democracy, glued together by a constitution that, in its essence, accepts all of us as equals and promises that the injustices of the past will never be allowed to breathe again.

The transformation of our motherland has taken many forms.

We can now see the many shades of people represented in every corner of our land, from office spaces to entertainment areas. Street names, public buildings and even town names that once celebrated the names of apartheid and colonial figureheads or values have been replaced with names that reflect our diversity and contributions to building this country.

While we agree that the process of transformation is still an ongoing one, and there is still much to do, we feel that in our corner of the sea, there is still a painful reminder of our past that has not been addressed.

That being the use of the word “Hottentot” as an “official” common name for two species of coastal fish. These fish are commonly caught by both recreational and small-scale fishers, so it is not an obscure fish.

“Hottentot” is a derogatory word used to label our first people.

In any fish textbook or even scientific publication, the common name “Hottentot” is used.

We were hoping in the nearly 30 years of our democratic era that our learned friends from academic and research institutions would have picked up on this and taken the initiative to make good and change these names, but that has not happened.

Minister Barbara Creecy, we therefore, request that the South African National Biodiversity Institute (Sanbi) be tasked to bring a relevant group of people together to propose a replacement for the name “Hottentot”.

In finding a replacement word, we could include ideas from the public so that we can use this process to highlight the importance of our coastal resources and recognise the role that indigenous communities played as custodians of our natural resources.

It is not only the common names of fish we take issue with. There are also some scientific names of fish that are truly offensive even though they have been latinised. These scientific names never belonged in science. They represented racist ideologies, and no young student of science should ever have to utter these words again.

We also request that Sanbi be tasked with identifying these names and engaging with the relevant international processes to propose alternatives by means of consultation.

The changing of these names is more than finding alternative names that are inclusive and represent who we are. It is also a recognition that small-scale fishers are the custodians of our natural resources – and that our indigenous knowledge needs to be officially recognised as a body of knowledge.

SA United Fishing Front chairperson and founder