[File Photo]
The term “Fijian” is a colonial construct that does not carry the same cultural and historical meaning as “iTaukei”.
Professor Steven Ratuva highlighted this during his submission to the Constitutional Review Commission.
Responding to a question from CRC member Ami Kholi on identity and personal identification, Ratuva argued that the two terms represent fundamentally different concepts, with one emerging from Indigenous self-identification and the other from colonial history.
CRC Commissioner Ami Kholi questioned Professor Ratuvua on aspects of Identity.
“I think you were just about to speak about identity, and we got cut short there; we would be grateful if you could address us on that.”
The Academic told the Commission that if the objective is to reflect Indigenous connections to land, culture and history, then “iTaukei” is the more appropriate term.
“The word taukei is a word which the taukei used to define themselves. When we talk to each other, it’s full of mana. It’s full of the connection with the land. Now the word ‘Fijian’ doesn’t do that.”
Ratuva says the name “Fiji” originated from a European interpretation of the Tongan pronunciation “Fisi,” evolving from the islands’ original name Viti before being formalised during the colonial era.
He says that this is very much an introduced European framing and that is what a lot of iTaukei don’t realise as Labels can be degrading as well as empowering.
Ratuva cautioned that embedding identity labels in the Constitution could have long-term political and social consequences, saying ethnic communities should have the right to define themselves rather than having identities imposed on them.
