In the feature article published on April 1, there was a thought along the lines of asking difficult questions. Not only difficult questions, but also questions which may seem to give rise to some unease, discomfort.
In addition to the types of questions to be put forward, there is also the element of the setting in which the conversation takes place. In some cases, it may be that people just never thought to ask certain questions of themselves, about their heritage and identity.
Identity, as we know at least in our indigenous setting, is so much more than just your name. It can encompass several villages. One will be with which an indigenous Fijian identifies with, or nona koro – his or her village.
Then there is the village where a person’s mother is from, or koro ni vasu, often referred to as the village with which one has maternal links to. These are the villages, which in the main, will determine the dynamics of a relationship or relationships with other indigenous Fijians.
However, it is important to note that factors which determine the way in which relationships are determined and actually observed. Every once in a while, the relationships at play may even go further than which is noted above.
These arise from blood and kinship ties related to villages, or groups, of which our parents were a vasu of. Groups such as yavusa, mataqali, tokatoka etc. From these groups come another aspect of indigenous identity – totems.
Depending on the schools they attend, iTaukei children, will at some stage of their primary education, ask their parents and elders questions in regards to their totems. Cava na nodatou kau, manumanu kei na ika?
The question simply asks with what tree or shrub, bird, and aquatic organism does our group identify with?
Put another way, which tree or shrub, bird, and aquatic organism identifies us as a group?
A year or two ago, a group from a theological school, visited several villages on Viti Levu for a project which attempts to change how development is viewed, that it not only be seen from a mainly monetary perspective.
While discussing the pros and cons of a proposed development, community members were also encouraged to consider how it would impact their natural environment. After all the natural environment, from a Christian creation story perspective, existed before humans came into being.
From an indigenous iTaukei perspective influenced by Christianity, the elements of our natural environment, since they were created first, can be said to be the older lineage of creation. mankind is the younger.
In addition to being the older lineage, and therefore deserving to command a lot of respect, the environment also provided sustenance, and it in too were totems. And this is where it got interesting. While all groups knew their totems, there were pauses when asked on why a certain tree or shrub was their totem?
This also went for the aquatic organism and bird. They did not know, or remember, the cultural significance of their totems.
For the past fortnight or so, mainly out of curiosity, the question was also posed to indigenous Fijians: workmates – present and former; some of whom we attended school, including university, together – some of whom are now pursuing PhD degrees; relatives, both maternal and paternal; and even to one who sits in the national debating chamber.
The vast majority knew their totems, but not the reason why that specific organism was their totem. A handful did not know their totems, at all. Some knew the origins of their totems which aligned with the migration of their forefathers.
Some were at a loss to explain how it could be that within a yavusa, there could be different totems. Amid all that, ran a thread, if it maybe called – a thread of ignorance.
When asked why it was that particular, tree/shrub/ bird and aquatic organism, the responses were either a blunt “I don’t know”, “that has never been explained/told to me”, a shrug, laugh, all of which communicated that the answer to that question was not known.
At least to the person who was being asked there and then. As this conversation developed, an idea began to form. Its basis was the diversity among indigenous Fijians in the matter of their dialects, customary practices in regard to births, marriages, death and mourning, etc.
In the midst of all that which makes them different, totems were the commonality. So maybe, just maybe, like all things which are common as in tokatoka, mataqali and yavusa, totems are a recent construct.
This view is further bolstered in a paper by linguist Professor Paul Geraghty. According to him, totems are only endemic to some groups of indigenous Fijians. He says that this cultural practice of having totems is mainly found within groups of Viti Levu.
How then did it gain national currency? Again, according to Prof Geraghty, those colonial officials who were then in charge of what used to be the Native Lands Commission or the Veitarogi Vanua, wrongly deemed that every group in Fiji had one.
They were in positions of authority and so their views, even if wrong, held sway. As a result, those who previously did not have totems, in order to conform to the official view and in the process have their tribal history/story validated through its acceptance by the colonial officials, made up totems for their groups.
This catholic or universal practice of all indigenous Fijians having totems, Prof Geraghty says, is totally at odds with authentic indigenous culture. However, one of the possible reasons it has become entrenched is because of its use in the national school curriculum.
This puts pressure on children to conform to the official view, though wrong it may be. A woman, originally from one of the villages in the delta area, during several conversations around that developmental theme mentioned earlier, said this exactly what was happening in their village.
Elders and parents were making up totems so that their children would not be ashamed of being different, of being the odd ones out, at school. What can, if anything, the indigenous Fijians do about this? Another question might be, do they want the change.
Given its supposed significance to the identity of the iTaukei, would it merit being on the agenda of the Great Council of Chiefs. We’ll leave that to those with the authority to decide.
• SAILOSI BATIRATU is a senior sub-editor with this newspaper. The views expressed in this article are his and do not reflect the views of this newspaper.
