Settlement of South Africa

May 2008
1,296
Bangkok
#1
Kindly note that this thread regards a period of a previous century, and yes it's for the sake of getting background on very controversial current events, but please keep any discussion limited to what happened centuries ago! Just want to establish:


The initial settlement of South Africa.... it appears that Bantu peoples had made it to the SA coast before Europeans arrived, but I can't get clarification that Bantus were actively settling the areas along the coast as whites started doing later.



This much seems clear: All of South African territories were occupied by Khoi Khoi and San people when the Europeans arrived as well as when the Bantu expansion reached South Africa.


For the sake of contextualizing and clarifying current sentiments floating around the media effluviumosphere, I'm offering a short allegory for SA's earlier settlement:



Dick = European settlers
Jane = Khoisan
Johnny = Bantu


Dick rapes Jane. Johnny rapes Jane. Johnny has no claim to having been raped by Dick since Johnny did his own raping. Jane is the true victim here.



How fair is this?
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,570
Benin City, Nigeria
#2
Though you could have expressed all of this in a less vulgar way, the basic idea that the Khoisan should be given land back under the land reform is correct. Even some South African people from Bantu language groups have recognized that:

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/art...an-have-been-overshadowed-in-the-land-debate/

However, the Bantu actually coexisted with the Khoisan in the area after they arrived. Members of Khoisan and Xhosa groups later sometimes fought together against Dutch colonists. I mentioned that here:

http://historum.com/middle-eastern-...d-differ-betw-4.html#post2889462?postcount=31

If the Bantu groups had been trying to do to the Khoisan groups what the Dutch had done to the Khoisan groups, then the Bantu groups wouldn't have retained Khoisan influence in their languages and coexisted alongside them for centuries. No point adopting aspects of another group's language into your own if the point is just to conquer rather than trade. If it was just a conquest there would probably only be a few words present in those languages at best.

With regard to the "rape" claim, even if it were true that the Bantu had actually done the same thing to the Khoisan that the Europeans did, the European colonists then took both the Khoisan land plus some of the (then) Bantu land as well, so going by that analogy, the Europeans would have committed a double "rape".


The argument you have put forward as it pertains to the current land reform does also leave out a relevant detail: that it was only under the post-apartheid government that some of the Khoisan people got any partial restitution of land (under Mandela's government). Were it not for the Bantu, their situation might be even worse it seems.

The government under the current president of SA has set up a commission of inquiry to address Khoisan demands. Restitution of any land at all to Khoisan groups, even if just partial, seems to basically be a Khoisan idea with some support from some Bantu people, but not from anyone else.

But maybe there are cases of European descended people advocating for the same thing prior to the end of apartheid? More knowledgeable people about that country's history can answer that one.
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,115
here
#3
Kindly note that this thread regards a period of a previous century, and yes it's for the sake of getting background on very controversial current events, but please keep any discussion limited to what happened centuries ago! Just want to establish:


The initial settlement of South Africa.... it appears that Bantu peoples had made it to the SA coast before Europeans arrived, but I can't get clarification that Bantus were actively settling the areas along the coast as whites started doing later.



This much seems clear: All of South African territories were occupied by Khoi Khoi and San people when the Europeans arrived as well as when the Bantu expansion reached South Africa.


For the sake of contextualizing and clarifying current sentiments floating around the media effluviumosphere, I'm offering a short allegory for SA's earlier settlement:



Dick = European settlers
Jane = Khoisan
Johnny = Bantu


Dick rapes Jane. Johnny rapes Jane. Johnny has no claim to having been raped by Dick since Johnny did his own raping. Jane is the true victim here.



How fair is this?
I'm not sure how fair it is, but the way you framed the question made me laugh.:lol:
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,570
Benin City, Nigeria
#5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeyr_Skull

Europeans were technically in the region well before the Bantu and the khoisan, as proven by the Hofmeyr skull, whose structure is distinct from the Khoisan and the Bantu, but show very close affinity with the Upper Paleothic skulls of Europe.
Or early East Africans that migrated into the area?

The description here doesn't suggest a European interpretation at all:

https://books.google.com/books?id=yf25055KtvsC&pg=PA228&

I've honestly never seen it referred to as evidence of an early European presence, and it seems that the Khoisan were there earlier anyway, since estimates put the Khoisan presence in the region as being long before the date given for that skull.
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,520
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#7
Ofc it was Africans who are rightful peopleof SA, we can also apply same logic to Europe and America.
The Bantus supposedly spread to SA pretty much the same time as the Dutch. The Boer Afrikaners live in Africa continuoisly for almost 400 years. In my eyes Afrikaners are just as native to SA than Bantus.

Warrior tribes like the Zulu were very brutal to their neighbours and their own people, which would result in their neighbourhood being more sparsely populated and groups like the Ndebele breaking off and heading North.


I heard white property in the cities (houses and flats) is going to be seized too. Is that true?
 
Dec 2015
2,512
USA
#8
The Bantus supposedly spread to SA pretty much the same time as the Dutch. The Boer Afrikaners live in Africa continuoisly for almost 400 years. In my eyes Afrikaners are just as native to SA than Bantus.

Warrior tribes like the Zulu were very brutal to their neighbours and their own people, which would result in their neighbourhood being more sparsely populated and groups like the Ndebele breaking off and heading North.


I heard white property in the cities (houses and flats) is going to be seized too. Is that true?
Information on this is hard to find, but there is a law in South Africa that basically states that any lands one stolen by black farmers and communities and given to whites can be returned to their original owners if the descendants can make a claim with the right paperwork and history.

So, yes, there are whites losing their property, but part of it is that some of that property was previously owned by someone else up until Apartheid.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,570
Benin City, Nigeria
#9
The Bantus supposedly spread to SA pretty much the same time as the Dutch. The Boer Afrikaners live in Africa continuoisly for almost 400 years. In my eyes Afrikaners are just as native to SA than Bantus.
The Bantu were there (SA) long before the Dutch. The specific areas in SA were Bantu groups did not have a presence were the areas that the Khoisan groups occupied.

I heard white property in the cities (houses and flats) is going to be seized too. Is that true?
Where did you hear that?
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
5,017
Netherlands
#10
The Bantus supposedly spread to SA pretty much the same time as the Dutch. The Boer Afrikaners live in Africa continuoisly for almost 400 years. In my eyes Afrikaners are just as native to SA than Bantus.

Warrior tribes like the Zulu were very brutal to their neighbours and their own people, which would result in their neighbourhood being more sparsely populated and groups like the Ndebele breaking off and heading North.
It is just a nightmare. You see the exact same reasoning as you have seen with the Yugo wars. Being white is enough to disqualify you for land, like being Bosnian. And most (like over 90%) of the farmer land wasn't inhabited at all, before the Boers came. And no you cant wage a war against natives the way the boers were (not) organized. Taking land from tribes would have been extremely difficult for them.
I heard white property in the cities (houses and flats) is going to be seized too. Is that true?
No. But it is going to. You will get the exact same things as you had with Croats in Serbia. "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer" must bring back some memories by association.
 

Similar History Discussions