GRIQUA RENAISSANCE

A POSITION TAKEN BY THE GRIQUA ROYAL HOUSE ADMINISTRATION FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE GRIQUA MONARCHY

THE STATUS QUE

I beg to direct your attention to Africa. I know that in a few years I shall be cut off in that country, which is now open. Do not let it be shut again! I go back to Africa to try to make an open path for commerce and Christianity; do you carry out the work which I have begun. I leave it with you! “ –David Livingstone – Cambridge University Address – 5 December 1857.

“Wherever a position of a King or Queen is to be filled, the following processes must be followed:

The Royal family must within a reasonable time after the need arises for the position of a King or Queen as the case may be, after taking into account whether any of the grounds referred to in section 10 (a), (b) and (d) apply to the person. Act 41 of 2003 National Traditional House.

When the honorable Professor   Phillips V. Tobias from the Anatomical Sciences Department of the 
“Does one group of people such as Adam Kok’s Griquas have the right to use Khoikhoi and san history for their own motives? Some groups can be seen as slowly turning their aims and goals into more regionalist and group orientated processes of restructuring.

As the needs of group become more concentrated, the structure of this group alters. Who has the right to claim leadership? Does Griqua leadership exist? Many Griqua groups dispute this issue, which has implications for archeologists dealing with claims. Who will they consult or negotiate with on these issues? Will issues such as “Kingship” complicate indigenous claims?

When Jan van Riebeeck invaded the Cape, in one of (1657) his interviews spoke with Eva a Khoi woman, traditionally known as Kratoa. She would appraised him of a mighty King called Chobona, who was the ruler of the Guringriqua, Cichuqua, Qwena, Cogoqua, Haringaichona, Hawequa, Hasequa, the Saldahnas, who shared the gateway to the Waterfront renowned for healing most of the invaders. Farther into the country were Attaqua, Korana, Outoniqua, Namaqua, to name but a few. The invasion of the indigenous land was twofold; conquest and Christianity or conquest and slave deportation, to wherever the company if Holland need manpower. Hence the inhabitants of Saldanha Bay were “culled” and deported to the various British garrisons in the Eastern Cape far from their Khoisan Heritage.

After 1807 the first march recorded in the Western Cape by the Khoe Khoe was in the Malmesbury area led by a man by the name of Louis, apparently a slave from Mauritius. He was eventually arrested and hanged in Cape Town.

With the event of the British defeating the Dutch at Blaauberg the slaves were freed and with the Xhosa war between them and the Zulu the Khoisan who were named “Mtembo” (meaning rovers) were assimilated by Hintsa under his Xhosa tribe as conquest and so were the Saldahnas, later the Pondos, Pondomisa, Gcalalekas, et. The known tribes at the Cape who were traditionally Khoisan with an own Monarchy system were once again ruled by another foreign power, the British.

However the British has studied the mistakes made by the Dutch and allowed the descendants of the 300 oarsmen from Jan van Riebeeck’s boat who has invaded the Khoisan habitat, applied their own criminal policy to count “ how many women they could impregnate” to form their own buffer tribe of “Afrikaners”. These bastardized creations were culled into grades of, from closest to Dutch features to those that failed, who were called coloureds. This group had to work in the madam’s kitchen and the garden. (The Khoisan has fought of all attempts to be turned into slaves during the Ditch rulership and the Chochoqua were the soldiers, whose responsibility under the command of King Chobona was to fight the invaders.

The British therefore, granted the Afrikaners right of passage to “trek out of the colony”. Here from, your great Trek which ended in the Transvaal under the leadership of Paul Kruger in 1899 where he was elected as their President.

The London Convention of Britain in 1884 in the meantime had spelt out their foreign policy and we quote Article 4 as follows:
“The South African Republic will conclude co treaty or engagement with ant state or nation other than the Orange free State, nor with any native tribes to the eastward or

INTRODUCTION

-    The legacy of the Adam Kok Dynasty presents a revolutionary challenge of thought in terms of Customary Law for various governments that have their origins in colonization and democratization.

-    That up to the apartheid regime starting with the Dutch in 1657 a vain attempt has been evident with one goal in mind, to effect genocide and engineered poverty amongst the indigenous people of Africa. This position is clear when reading about Jan can Riebeeck in his interview with the indigenous matriarch of the day. Kratoa and Chinoba, the king of the Southern Hemisphere of Africa and,

-    The flight from the British government and becoming a fugitive  Adam Kok 11 had a warrant for his arrest on charges of rebellion hanging over his head. During this period total havoc in terms of large scale expropriation and annexation as a result of the Keats verdict had ensued, relentlessly. Attempts to destroy the Griqua culture and language in combination with landlessness, at the centre thereof was an act of war by the missionaries and their partners, respectively
-    And

-    A subversion of the Monarchy was planned by the missionaries of the day and put the Kok Dynasty in jeopardy in terms of Succession rights and land ownership, creating a temporary position of flux and a vacuum in the lineage and leadership of the Griqua nation
-    And

-    This part of history which reflects the subversive machinations of the missionaries of the day, goes back to the year 1819, when the missionaries sidelined Aam Kok 11, because he had rebelled and refused to succumb to the colonial system of the day
-    And

-    The position remained and escalated from 1832 until 1835. it must be remembered that the discord during this time was between Nicholas Waterboer, Peter Kolby and David Arnot. At the centre of the argument was the annexation of the Campbell Lands on the one front and on the other, was the vicious bloodletting of Mzilikazi the commander and warlord of King Tshaka. Abraham Kok, the oldest son of Adam Kok 11 applied his mind, supported by Cornelius Kok camass a counter offensive against Mzilikazi. It does appear that the offensive gave his wife little hope of his return and subsequently, she married his younger brother Adam Kok 111.

-    In the year 1835 Adam Kok11 died. David Arnot in the meantime who had beef his advisor had advised Andries Waterboer to sign a treaty with the missionaries and Benjamin d’Urban, in 1834 knowingly, that Adam Kok 11 had not long to live.  They had Adam Kok11 and Honorable Barend Berends were greatly upset and opposed this appointment. The result was that they were forced to vacate the area of Griqualand East and took refuge at Campbell, See Ross 1976; Cape Coloured people, Marais and

-    The core of the Griqua people had settled in Campbell where the Royal Dynasty in the persons of both His majesty Cornelius Kok 1 and Cornelius Kok 11 lived and eventually died, whilst still in the yoke of restraint of an oppressive imposition, respectively. In contradistinction thereto His majesty Adam Kok 11 again later moved from Campbell to Phillapolis in Griqualand East. Honorable Berends in consequence thereof, moved to Boetsap and later to Danielskuil, which was later annexed and expropriated by Dr. Phillip and

-    In the meantime Andries Waterboer, who had signed a treaty with David Arnot an agent of the missionaries, was deviously inclined to erode the authority of Adam Kok 111 and had a hidden agenda. He played up the British government against the Tswana tribes causing chaos to overthrown Cornelius Kok 11’s authority. His whole aim was to replace Cornelius Kok 11 with Andries Waterboer and therewith lobby for the annexation of the Campbell Lands. He had turned Andries Waterboer into a glorified security officer of border, north of the Orange River against the invasion of blacks. He was married to a daughter of Adam Kok 11. and

-    According to a historical digression, we find that Cornelius Kok 1 had the family received the family staff of office in the year 1793 from his father Adam Kok 1. in turn Cornelius Kok 1 handed over this staff of office to his younger son Cornelius Kok 11. Cornelius Kok 1 died in 1858. After the death of Abraham Kok the oldest son of Adam Kok 11, Cornelius Kok 11, conferred staff of office onto Prince Adam Kok 111 in the year 1875. by this time the Griqua church had boasted a strong Pentecostal character herein after known as the Griqua Independent Church. And

-    We come across a man by the name of Stuurman, who was known to be a villain by the missionaries. He had taken refuge with Cornelius Kok 11 around 1833. Andries Waterboer was commissioned by Lord Somerset to affect an arrest on Stuurman who purportedly had come from the Eastern Cape, but was violently appose by Cornelius Kok II, to the risk being shot at by him. Andries Waterboer died later in 1852. he was succeeded by his son Nicholas Waterboer, where after his father’s treaty with the missionaries, was declared avoidable and,

-    Andries Stockenstroom Le Fleur shortly here after married the daughter of Johannes Adam Muis Kok. Adam Etta Kok was the provincial captain of that time. On 9th of May 1889, Andries Stockenstroom Le Fleur was sent by his father to look for his donkeys.        
And,



-    On his mission he saw it opportune to emulate the vision as recorded in scripture in the book of Samuel where Saul was sent by his father to look for donkeys and heard voices in the mountain declaring him to be a king. In 1889 Andries Stockenstroom Le Fleur declared himself as a prophet after having heard a voice on the banks of the Umzimhlaba River, from a rock, summoning him to collect the bones of Adam Kok III.     
And,
                                 
-    In November 1897, he subsequently summoned a meeting with fifty (50) followers at Mount Curry in Griqualand East where he addressed them. On the agenda was the launching of a defiance campaign against the annexation of land by the British Government. During these skirmishes Adam Muis Kok, his wife Wilhelmina Baartman and Smith Pomper were shot dead. After having heard the bones of Adam Kok III, calling out to him from a rock to lead the Griqua nation, Andries Stockenstroom Le Fleur founded an N.G.O. hereinafter named The Griqua National Conference
And,

-    Subsequently, to this event Adam Etta Kok on hindsight in digression, within his same period of family turmoil, had ceded his provincial captaincy to Van der Westhuizen. In this Vacuum Andries Stockenstroom Le Fleur took office in the church with ulterior motives. He had seen that the church of his day determined the will of the people and as a consequence thereof, positioned himself with those structures strategically, to manipulate the congregation for political and financial reasons to enrich himself.
And,
                               
-    
ORRIGINS OF THE SANQUA AND OTTENTOTU

1.    SANQUA

The Chinese in the 10th century called the Sanqua (Bushman) Kung. History has it that the Sanqua do not originate from South Africa, but was driven by the result of wars from their original habitat around the Kilimanjaro regions to south of the Zambezi river by “tall brown skinned men brandishing shields and spears” Known as Nguni. However, their present in South Africa dates back to the end of the Paleolithic era.

They were nomadic hunters. “A free and happy world, rich, wild vegetation and an abundance of game”. Their prehistoric artwork depicted their survival, history, culture, tools and rituals. As nomadic people, attached minimum value to organizational structures for self governance and as individual tribes, their woman build their huts, milked cows and they move from place to place under customary patriarchal tribal system of order, “The Elders” and believed in a creator.

Customary law “did not derive from legislation or the written law, as recorded in the colonial era of regents of Holland, but from local convictions of people. See Van Breda and Jacobs”. “long established and uniformly observed” 1921 AD 330. Compare also – Development of Customary law Rule of Succession, Mthembu v Letsela and another 1998 (2) SA 675 T.






2.    OTTENTOTU

The Ottentotu in contradistinction to the Sanqua have their origins with the Hamites and had “a material culture”. The attached maximum value to organizational and self governing structure and their livestock raisers e.g. “long horn oxen and broad tale sheep’. The woman was responsible for agricultural development and in charge of the domestic fabric and its perpetuation. The men were traders with the Indians, Chinese and Portuguese until the Dutch set foot in South Africa. The Dutch called them the Hottentots. With time their culture, language and religion suffered the brand of colonization by the Dutch at the barrel of a gun followed by the British, respectively.

This process resulted in the incarcerated if Adam Kok I in solitary confinement in the castle in Cape Town.
The organizational and self-governing structures were destroyed along with their local governance structures, vested in “a chief of a fixed territory”. From here the Chiefs in order of clan and age supported a monarchy based on a patriarchic cal system and hierarchy, choosing from amongst them a King, as was customary.

The missionaries, who were the agents of the rulers of the day, saw this system as a thread and declared the religion of the Hottentot as “Heresy”. There from, their language and culture kept as custom and tradition, was destroyed in this manner. To ensure that the Monarchy system would be vilified and rejected, the land was expropriated and given to the church for administration and the original owners work the land for their new owners, with their entire families. The Sanqua refused to be forced into the Christianity annexation programme and moved north as far as Botswana.

3.    DESTRUCTION OF KINGSHIP AND MONARCHY RELATED
CUSTOMARY SELF GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES.

It is clear, wherever colonial structures replaced indigenous monarchies, subordinate titles is enforced on the various Sovereign States throughout Africa, to ensure an annexation, alienation, dispossession and disenfranchisement programme; COLONIZATION e.g. Conference Britain in 1884; The German Conference Treaties of Protection 1884. German Conference of Berlin; French Agreement of 1895. Here from follow your independent republics of the various states of Africa. Languages replaced; self governance systems of the indigenous owners of the land replaced; the economies stabilized and a foreign political policy enforced. With it handpicked converts; “chiefs” to ensure subjections and thereby in turn, ensure a master and servant system, whether as dominions or republics. 

Latest comments

20.05 | 15:46

send an email to :griquacommissariate@gmail.com

...
17.05 | 03:46

I am researching my Great Great Grandfather Missionary Christoph Andreas Sass who married an Orlam Kaaitjie Engelbrecht in Silver Fountain 1817. Any help please

...
17.05 | 03:33

I am doing research of my Great Great Grandfather Christoph Andreas Sass who was a missionary in Namaqualand from 1811 and moved to Captain Cornelius Kok's Kraa

...
15.05 | 14:16

Thanks Joe

...
Hi!
Make your own website like I did.
It's easy, and absolutely free.
AD