Settlement of South Africa

Mar 2012
1,579
Following the breeze
#41
So didn't the Zulus massacre the other black inhabitants when they went south?
Why would the Zulu's need to move South when they were in the South??? Willempie, you really need to study a bit of South African history. The statement which you have made above makes no sense at all, if you take it within the context of South African history.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,016
Spain
#42
They will sunk South Afrika as they sunk Rhodesia...Boers did not steal the land, they were uncultivated land and abandoned in most cases. The wealth of the Zulues was the cattle ... not the crop. (I do not say that they did not cultivate). By other side, Zulu were not the only inhabitants of South Africa.
When the Boers arrived.. not even it doesn´t exist the Zulu clan!!

I think when the Dutch (the second european to arrive to South Afrika.. first the Portuguese: Dias, Almeida, Alburqueque) landed in Suid Afrika.. nor Zulu, no Xhosa, no nobody... only the Khoinsan (a boesmans group) and the boesmans didn´t culitvate... the land. they were hunters. In fact, Boers never had trouble with them!

I think the problem begun when the Zulus (first) and British (later) arrived to South Afrika. The Boeren were not interested in mines or diamons... British yes.

For me it is clear.. That is the Boer land. Only the Bushmen have more rights than them (and the Portuguese.. but Portuguese are a minority integrated into the boers ranks).
I lived in SA.. my first 8 years old...and I went to an Afrikaner school. In those days... every thing was clean... I remember my father putting on money and get a beverage.. nobody inside...you could get the drink and out but nobody didn´t... It was a very civilizated country with lot of civism.
Still I have friendship with my neighbor... she was the same age than me (now a middle age woman)... She always ask me when I will go back to SA.. and I say Never... it would be very hard to me see how the paradise I lived it has been broken, desecrated, destroyed by a bunch of savages.

I didn´t want to take part int this thread and I won´t.. but If I was in silent.. it is like to collaborate with thieves who steal the land of those who have cultivated it for centuries ... and made South Africa a beautiful place to live. (Not today.. that is an awful place).

Regards
 
Mar 2012
1,579
Following the breeze
#43
They will sunk South Afrika as they sunk Rhodesia...Boers did not steal the land, they were uncultivated land and abandoned in most cases. The wealth of the Zulues was the cattle ... not the crop. (I do not say that they did not cultivate). By other side, Zulu were not the only inhabitants of South Africa.
When the Boers arrived.. not even it doesn´t exist the Zulu clan!!

I think when the Dutch (the second european to arrive to South Afrika.. first the Portuguese: Dias, Almeida, Alburqueque) landed in Suid Afrika.. nor Zulu, no Xhosa, no nobody... only the Khoinsan (a boesmans group) and the boesmans didn´t culitvate... the land. they were hunters. In fact, Boers never had trouble with them!

I think the problem begun when the Zulus (first) and British (later) arrived to South Afrika. The Boeren were not interested in mines or diamons... British yes.

For me it is clear.. That is the Boer land. Only the Bushmen have more rights than them (and the Portuguese.. but Portuguese are a minority integrated into the boers ranks).
I lived in SA.. my first 8 years old...and I went to an Afrikaner school. In those days... every thing was clean... I remember my father putting on money and get a beverage.. nobody inside...you could get the drink and out but nobody didn´t... It was a very civilizated country with lot of civism.
Still I have friendship with my neighbor... she was the same age than me (now a middle age woman)... She always ask me when I will go back to SA.. and I say Never... it would be very hard to me see how the paradise I lived it has been broken, desecrated, destroyed by a bunch of savages.

I didn´t want to take part int this thread and I won´t.. but If I was in silent.. it is like to collaborate with thieves who steal the land of those who have cultivated it for centuries ... and made South Africa a beautiful place to live. (Not today.. that is an awful place).

Regards
You clearly haven't read through any of the information provided throughout this thread :notrust: ...
 
Mar 2014
1,794
Lithuania
#44
Your views are clearly very pro African, I don't want to be insulting, but Afrocentric people tend to post on Historum more insane crap than any other group. I am not an expert to South African history, but I think it is quite clear, that Bantu and Dutch at least in parts of South Africa arrived at the same time, so they have pretty much same claim to the land. Khoi are true natives in that part of the World, but they are almost extinct.

If this whole discussion rotates about latest insane land laws in South Africa, then at least on paper they do not exactly target Whites. As far as I understand only government will be owning land, everybody else will have to lease it. One of the people who are very unhappy about whole deal is king of Zulu who is one of very large landowners. I don't think that anything good can come from law where sole owner of the land will be quite corrupt government.
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,513
Benin City, Nigeria
#45
Someone raised by two white parents who once wrote on this forum years ago that precolonial sub-Saharan Africans didn't have states (a statement which was criticized by another poster at the time; regardless of whether or not he still believes that now, it's clearly not a statement someone pushing an Afrocentrist agenda would make) is hardly anyone's idea of an Afrocentrist.

Maybe at least bother to familiarize yourself with the posting history of those you're launching personal attacks against before likening them to "an Afrocentrist posting insane crap". And maybe offer the Cell an apology when you figure out just how far off base you are.

It's the EFF that wanted/wants state ownership of land; the ANC has come out against that idea.

The Dutch "arrived at the same time" stuff is fiction.

Also, this statement:
Your views are clearly very pro African
Just makes me wonder why simply objecting to an extremist narrative popular among many in the west makes one automatically pro African? It just seems silly.
 
Last edited:
May 2017
642
France
#46
Hello everybody and thank you very much.In 1685, the king of France Louis XIV has revoked by the edit of Fontainebleau the edit of Nantes (1598) about the liberty of religion.So thousands of huguenots have tried -it was the big panic-to pass in Nederland.As i discussed about that with Nick Mallet,the famous "springbok",he told me that a lot of huguenots have passed before in South Africa,to build a new life.Have we statistics about the number of them ?
 
Nov 2011
8,787
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
#48
Hello everybody and thank you very much.In 1685, the king of France Louis XIV has revoked by the edit of Fontainebleau the edit of Nantes (1598) about the liberty of religion.So thousands of huguenots have tried -it was the big panic-to pass in Nederland.As i discussed about that with Nick Mallet,the famous "springbok",he told me that a lot of huguenots have passed before in South Africa,to build a new life.Have we statistics about the number of them ?
There is a large body of records on the Huguenot settlement in the Cape and detailed family histories and biographies, you can start with the link below.

The number of settlers was quite small, just 180 individuals from France and 18 Walloons from what would now be Belgium between 1687 and 1707 when their passage was paid for by the VOC (Dutch East India company). Huguenot immigration continued after sponsored passage ended in dribs and drabs with 270 "Fransmanne" being recorded in 1720. Even so, as the colony was still quite small, they made up some 15% of the population and became extremely influential and although their "Frenchness" disappeared in a generation or so as no French education or French preachers were permitted and intermarriage with Dutch origin settlers was the norm in the second generation. However French origin names among the modern Afrikaans population is so common that possibly half of modern-day Afrikaaners have a French ancestor (eg. Le Roux, du Plessis, De Klerk (le Clerq), Malan, Malherbe, Joubert and so on.
A handful of Huguenots did arrive in the Cape before the Edict of Nantes having been "poached" for their knowledge of viticulture--the purpose of the Cape settlement was not colonisation--it was to provide a "garden" to produce fresh vegetables and meat for VOC ships on their long voyage to the East--it was believed in the 17thC that wine was an important part of a healthy diet and wines of the period did contain a reasonable amount of Vitamin C and other nutrients. The VOC had tried to produce wine, but it was pretty much rubbish and it was the French arrivals that both stole vines from French vineyards (exporting vines was a capital offence) and set up the industry that exists today.
It is a reasonable assumption that those Huguenots who did arrive did so with some capital as, despite getting free passage and land grants, were able to rapidly build productive wine estates, wineries and the associated infrastructure.


https://www.geni.com/projects/French-Huguenots-who-emigrated-to-South-Africa/8652
 
Nov 2011
8,787
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
#50
Your views are clearly very pro African, I don't want to be insulting, but Afrocentric people tend to post on Historum more insane crap than any other group. I am not an expert to South African history, but I think it is quite clear, that Bantu and Dutch at least in parts of South Africa arrived at the same time, so they have pretty much same claim to the land. Khoi are true natives in that part of the World, but they are almost extinct.
.
I, on the other hand, am an expert on South African history and I would suggest that you pay attention to “The Cell”--of those who post regularly on here, he is by far the most knowledgeable about South African history (except for me of course) and he gets things about 95% right.
Being on the spot, he is also more clued up on the current situation, although (sorry Boetie) reluctant to see the big picture.

Your comment “ *that Bantu and Dutch at least in parts of South Africa arrived at the same time, so they have pretty much same claim to the land. Khoi are true natives in that part of the World, but they are almost extinct.” is a bit superficial. (I am being polite).

It is fairly well accepted that “Bantu” people did not penetrate further South and West than the Fish River in any organised way. Nor did they occupy the vast majority of the interior West of modern day Bloemfontain, Western Botswana, the Northern Cape or Namibia south of the Cunene, but populated areas ebbed and flowed over time dependent on climatic changes—as they practised some basic agriculture in addition to pastoralism, “Bantu” settlement changed over the +- 1000 years that they inhabited Southern Africa before the arrival of Europeans dependent on rainfall patterns.
There is evidence that the ancestors of the Xhosa people, or at least their influences, existed as far West as Craddock c. 800AD although this is contested. It seems from recent genetic research that the relationship between “Bantu”, Khoi-Khoi and San is far more complex that previously reported—I shall post on that shortly. That the European colonist arrived at some areas at the same time as “Bantu” is only half-right. In some places, the “Bantu” never occupied the land at all.
The “Khoi “ (wrong term) are far from extinct.