The 5 Lies About Land In South Africa: Bantu Black Africans Do NOT Have Default Right To Land
“Where is the archaeological proof that Blacks ‘settled’ South Africa? … For an entire century, unaware of the existence of black tribes, Afrikaner farmers expanded their settlement to over 170 000 square kilometers (more than twice the size of Austria) of desolated and unoccupied land… To claim that ‘the whole of Africa belongs to Blacks’ is absurd. It is like an Italian claiming the whole of Europe belongs to Italians, including Norway. “
Editor: When Marxist Julius Malema is not being fitted for his European haute couture outfits (the best that
someone else’s money can buy including USD17,000 dress watches), he’s sings about killing European men, women and children. His vicious envy arises from the fact that he is not indigenous to southern Africa, no Bantu black African is. Their claim on land rights are a fraud of the highest order.
The following article was originally titled the 4 Black Lies, I have revised it to the 5 Lies. Even these authors fell for the Politically Correct (not factual) narrative about the Zimbabwe Ruins in Rhodesia being of Bantu origin (perhaps because they are South African and focused on SA). I discuss in the Editor’s End Notes, that the “Bantu built the Zimbabwe Ruins” narrative is vital to anti-White rhetoric for several reasons. I also removed the word Black from the header title, because the Zimbabwe Ruins narrative is rejected by the Shona (Black Bantu) elders – so someone else is pushing that narrative!
The 5 Black lies about land in South Africa. Bantu (black Africans) DO NOT have default right to land.
From SA News
Contrary to popular “politically correct” propaganda put out by mass media, the Bantu, like Europeans, are also settler’s in Southern Africa, having arrived in Northern South Africa about the same time Europeans arrived in Southern South Africa (The Cape). The Bantu had arrived after an extended conquest and genocidal migration southwards from West Africa (Nigeria).
Etymology, history, origins and expansion of the proto-Bantu people of Africa. Bantu peoples is used as a general label for the 300–600 ethnic groups in Africa who speak Bantu languages. The word Bantu and its variations means “people” or “humans”. Versions of this word occur in all Bantu languages.
Between 2500–3000 years ago, speakers of the proto-Bantu language group began a millennia-long series of migrations eastward from their homeland in West Africa. Current scholarly understanding places the ancestral proto-Bantu homeland in West Africa near the present-day south-western border of Nigeria and Cameroon. By 3,500 years ago Bantu-speaking communities reached the great Central African rain forest and by 2,500 years ago pioneering groups had emerged into the savannah in what are now the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, and Zambia. Another stream of migration, moving east 3,000 years ago was creating a major new population centre near the Great Lakes of East Africa, where a rich environment supported a dense population.
Movements by small groups to the south-east from the Great Lakes region were more rapid, with initial settlements widely dispersed near the coast and near rivers, due to harsh farming conditions in areas farther from water. Before the expansion of farming and herding Bantu language speaking peoples, Africa south of the equator was populated by neolithic hunting and foraging proto-Khoisan-speaking peoples, whose few remaining descendants, the Khoekhoe and San, now occupy the arid regions around the Kalahari desert.
The Hadza and Sandawe populations in Tanzania comprise the other modern hunter-forager remnant in Africa of these proto-Khoisan-speaking peoples. Over a period of many centuries, most hunting-foraging peoples were displaced and assimilated by incoming Bantu-speaking communities from West, North Central and Eastern Africa. There is no record of how many genocides this involved as whole tribes disappeared.
The Bantu expansion was a long series of physical migrations. Between the 14th and 15th centuries, Bantu states began to emerge in the Great Lakes region in the savannah south of the Central African rain-forest.
In Southern Africa on the Zambezi river, the Monomatapa kings built the famous *Great Zimbabwe complex, the Bumbusi in Zimbabwe and Manyikeni in Mozambique.
* Editor: The Black Bantu did not build the Great Zimbabwe Complex, see the Editor End Notes below.
From the 16th century onward, the processes of state formation among Bantu peoples increased in frequency. Examples of such Bantu states include the Lunda and Luba Empires of Angola, the Congo in the Great Lakes Region, the Buganda and Karagwe Kingdoms of Uganda and Tanzania and in [Rhodesia] Zambia / Zimbabwe region, the Mutapa Empire, Rozwi Empire and the Danamombe, Khami and Naletale Kingdoms of Zimbabwe and Mozambique.
Smaller pioneering groups reached modern-day KwaZulu-Natal along the coast and the modern-day Northern Province where they began to make contact with northward migrating white peoples from the Southern tip of Africa.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the flow of Bantu slaves from South-east Africa increased with the rise of the Omani Sultanate of Zanzibar and Tanzania. With the arrival of European colonialists, the Zanzibar Sultanate came into direct conflict with Portuguese and other Europeans along the East coast, leading to the fall of the Sultanate and the end of slave trading in the mid-20th century.
So REAL history (not fanciful, imagined ANC pan africanist nonsense) tells us that when Jan van Riebeek  established a trading post at the Cape the Nguni tribes had barely began to reach [Rhodesia] Zimbabwe and Mozambique.
LIE NUMBER ONE:
There is a common belief in the myth in South Africa that the Natives Land Act of 1913 shoved blacks on reserves (‘7% of the land’) and ‘prohibited them from buying land in white areas’. That ‘whites forcibly removed blacks to these reserves and that these reserves were on the worst land in the country with no mineral riches and that whites kept all the best land and minerals for themselves’. Now if I was a black man, I would probably also want to believe that myth, because it would ensure me eternal victim-hood status and compensation for generations to come. Unfortunately, it is a blatant lie and can be attributed to the lack of reading ability or legal comprehension of the journalists and historians of our time.
First of all the biggest Platinum reserves in the world runs through the former Black homeland of Bophuthatswana (North West province). The former Nationalist government had no problem allocating this area to the Tswana tribes for self rule – although they already had a massive country called Botswana given to them by the British. It was originally part of South Africa, called Bechuanaland.
Blacks further got another two massive countries from the British called Lesotho and Swaziland. There goes their 7%.
LIE NUMBER TWO:
‘Black homelands were on the worst land in South Africa’.
THE TRUTH: When one compares the rainfall map of South Africa and anybody with elementary knowledge of South Africa will tell you that the largest part of South Africa is called the Karoo. It is a semi desert comparable to Arizona or Nevada in the USA. Blacks never even entered this area let alone settled it. Whites made it blossom and created successful sheep farms producing meat of world quality. Black “settlements” are found on the north and east coast of South Africa.
The East Coast has a sub tropical climate and the north a prairie-like climate with summer rainfall and thunder storms. An exception to this is the Western Cape with a Mediterranean climate and winter rainfall. The northern and eastern part of South Africa with its beautiful green grasslands and fertile soil is where the blacks eventually coalesced and this is the land they chose for themselves. Their eventual homelands were found on the land they inhabited out of their own free will.
The Afrikaners even have a song praising the greenness of Natal, called ” Groen is die land van Natal” ( Green is the land of Natal). It was perfect grazing area for the cattle herding blacks. The rainfall map below clearly show this.
LIE NUMBER THREE:
‘Blacks are indigenous to South Africa and first settled it’.
THE TRUTH: Today Blacks in South Africa often tell Afrikaners and other minorities such as the Coloureds, Indians, Chinese or Jews to’ adapt to their misrule and corruption or “Go Home”, implying that we, who have been born here, who hold legal citizenship through successive birthrights; should emigrate to Europe, Malaysia, India or Israel. That the only ones who have a legal claim to South Africa, all of it, are the blacks.
Blacks believe that they are ‘ indigenous to South Africa ‘ – but they are not: it was proven by DNA research. We are ALL settlers in South Africa. All South Africans are settlers, regardless of their skin colour, and their DNA carries the proof. So says Dr Wilmot James, head of the African Genome Project, a distinguished academic, sociologist and, more recently, honorary professor of human genetics at the University of Cape Town.
Where is the archaeological proof that blacks ‘settled’ South Africa? Apart from a few scattered archaeological remains found of black culture in the far northern Transvaal prior to 1652, it is generally agreed that Blacks and Whites were contemporary settlers of South Africa. I use the term “Settler” loosely, because blacks never ‘settled’ South Africa, their presence was nomadic.
Blacks were itinerants who traveled from place to place with no fixed home. Whole capital “cities” of grass huts could be moved if grazing was exhausted. They had no demarcated areas, no fences, no borders, no maps, no title deeds to proof ownership of any land apart from a verbal claim and mutual understanding that their temporary presence in a certain area in a certain period of time constituted “ownership” of the land. They left behind no foundations of buildings, no statues, no roads, no rock paintings, not a single proof of “settlement” of the land prior to the Whites settling South Africa.
The only rock paintings were made by the Bushmen and the Hottentots (Khoi-Khoi and San) in the caves they temporarily occupied. Blacks were pastoral-nomads and the Bushmen/Hottentots were hunter-gatherer- nomads. The UN has been asking the bantu ANC government to declare the Khoisan Bushman as indigenous First Nation status, the Bantu have refused for over a decade.
Whites on the other hand built cities, rail roads, dams and a first world country comparable to the best in Europe and the new world. Their legacy speaks of a people who intended to live there for a thousand years, if not eternity. To claim that ‘the whole of Africa belongs to Blacks’ is absurd. It is like an Italian claiming the whole of Europe belongs to Italians, including Norway.
In fact, the pyramids of Egypt are proof of white settlement going back thousands of years – and also the Phoenicians settling Carthage and the Greeks settling Alexandria. The Arabs settled North Africa soon after the Prophet Mohammed died and the whites settled Southern Africa from 1652 onwards.
Today there are three Africa’s as Dr. Eschel Rhoodie calls it in his book “The Third Africa” (1968). Arabic up north, Black in the centre and Whites at the south. The White settlers of the Cape first came face to face with the Bantu around 1770 on the banks of the Great Fish River, 120 years after Van Riebeeck came to the Cape and 1,000 km east of Cape Town.
LIE NUMBER FOUR:
Whites created black reserves and homelands.
THE TRUTH: Blacks created the homelands themselves, thanks to Shaka Zulu.The common belief is that the ‘black tribes at the time were all living peacefully and in the spirit of ‘Ubuntu’ with each other in a virtual liberal paradise’. Nothing could be further from the truth. Shaka-Zulu was a genocidal maniac who wiped out some 2-million black people in the Defecane.
The Zulu tyrant Shaka, at the time was committing genocide against other tribes. Wiping out an estimated *2 million people in what is now known as the Defecane (great scattering). The Swazis and the Ndebeles fled back north in the direction of central Africa where they migrated from. The Sotho’s fled into the mountains of what is today, Lesotho. The rest of the smaller tribes huddled together trying to find strength in coalescing. That is the history of black South Africans that blacks prefer to ignore, that blacks drove other blacks off their land, not whites.
Editor: *2,000,000 slaughtered must also be considered in terms of the very low hunter-gatherer populations, not in terms of the explosion in Black populations post the arrival of Whites. (So much for the claim Whites were genociding Blacks!)
It is into this Maelstrom of black chaos that the Boers trekked in 1838. As far as they went they found large open sections of country uninhabited by anyone. Black tribes fleeing Shaka’s carnage grouped themselves into areas finding protection in concentrated numbers. This is how Sir Theophilus Shepstone later found the remnants of black refugees huddled together on self-created reserves. He just demarcated it in order to protect them from each other.
The creators of the Bantustans were not the Boers or the Whites, it was a black man called Shaka.”
Who has a right to land in South Africa? Bantu settlers or white settlers? Or the current communist regime and their cronies?
“Are White South Africans a “settler nation”? Or are Black South Africans a “settler nation”?
While reading the excerpt from South African president Jacob Zuma’s speech early in January at the ANC party, the following anonymously said quote came to mind:
“In the world we live in, history is being turned into modern day lies, and modern day lies are being turned into history”.
After twenty one years of public abuse by black politicians who assert that the white nation of South Africa is a “settler nation” that “dispossessed African land”, Jacob Zuma grabbed at the opportunity to address the problems of South Africa at the 103rd birthday party of the African National Congress. The expectations were not high, and many suspected that some favorite scapegoats such as Apartheid and racism would be mentioned.
This Zulu president, amidst the electricity problems that faces South Africa for the first time in it’s modern history, took a full racist swing at the white population in general, stating that the problems of South Africa emerged along with the arrival of what he believes to be the first white man in South-Africa.
“You must remember that a man named Jan van Riebeeck arrived here on 6 April, 1652 and that was the start of the trouble in this country”, Zuma told at the Friday evening event, where guests paid R3 million to sit at his table.
Needless to say that the date and name are the only historically correct segments of this statement, it must also be remembered that about 4 million Afrikaner people, descendants of Jan van Riebeeck’s groups, currently live in South Africa.
Taking the South African constitution into consideration, this whole scale condemnation of and contempt towards a substantial population group of South Africa, can be regarded as hate speech. Zuma is known for singing “Kill the Boer (white people)” at ANC rallies where he speaks of the ANC’s defeat of white colonial rule and the “settlers in our midst”.
Is the white Afrikaner nation a “settler nation” that dispossessed black people’s land, as black politicians so often assert?
To reach a valid historical perspective of the human relations pattern in present-day South Africa, one has to go back to the days of Columbus, close to five centuries ago.
In the 14th century, five years before Columbus set out on his trans-Atlantic voyage which resulted in the discovery of America, the Portuguese navigator, Bartholomew Diaz, reached the southern-most part of Africa. Here, in 1652 at the Cape of Good Hope, halfway between Europe and the East, the Dutch East India Company established a victualing station for passing East India men. The Dutch intended the station to be self-supporting, but this soon proved to be impracticable without allowing officials to settle as “free burghers”
In 1657, the first free burghers were permitted to become private farmers, and in this way the foundations of a new nation in Africa were laid. The ranks of the original free men were subsequently strengthened by the people of Dutch, German and French descent. The term “boer” (farmer) was elevated to the honorable concept of “Boer”, with a wider connotation, viz.pioneer and settler. “Boer” became synonymous with the appellation “Afrikaner”, a term used as early as 1706 to denote people who had their roots in the African soil. Their permanent links with Africa were emphasized by the spontaneous and natural way in which the various 17th century Dutch dialects evolved into a new tongue, Afrikaans.
The only indigenous peoples to come in contact with the Boer-Afrikaner community, were nomadic Bushmen and Hottentot tribes. In the case of the Hottentots, deculturisation and the ravages of a series smallpox epidemics led to the disintegration of the main tribes and their subsequent progressive involvement with East Indian slaves*, as well as with sailors, soldiers and people of other races, in the crystallization of a new ethnic group, the Cape Coloureds. A further element was admixed with the Cape Coloured community upon the arrival of Bantu tribes.
*[There were no Negro slaves, slaves were brought from nations like Malay]
The Bantu tribes, the forefathers of the majority of modern day black people in South Africa, are established mainly in the part of the continent south of the Sahara desert. Today many local Black sophisticates prefer to be called Africans, a misleading appellation considering that contemporary Africa is the mother continent of a large number of different ethnic, racial, linguistic and religious entities.
The first meetings between Afrikaner farmers, or Boers, and black tribes took place during 1750-1770 roughly where the Eastern Cape is today.
For an entire century, unaware of the existence of black tribes, Afrikaner farmers, who have mostly already been born on African soil, expanded their settlement to over 170 000 square kilometers (more than twice the size of Austria) of desolated and unoccupied land. Only towards the end of the 16th century did the Afrikaner farmers increasingly come into contact with Black tribes.
In the 1770’s, some what thousand kilometers to the north-east of Cape Town, the Afrikaner migratory stream came into substantial contact with the vanguard of another migratory movement, namely the Xhosa-speaking tribe. They were the advance guard of a Black migratory movement from the vicinity of the Great Lakes of Central Africa. It would appear that by the end of the 15th century these tribes had moved as far as present-day Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. They probably crossed into the present-day Republic of South Africa appreciable numbers in the course of the 17th century – at about the same time as the Afrikaner free farmers’ settlement was expanding inland from the Cape of Good Hope.
The Black population movement into the area which later became known as British South Africa did not constitute a single coherent expansion. It took the form of successive waves of small tribes representing four different Black ethnic groups – Nguni, Sotho, Venda and Tsonga – responding to the push and pull of economic conditions and tribal conflicts.
These migratory tribes simply moved to wherever nature offered most and enemies threatened least. Among these tribes the modern Western concept of a geo-politically defined country and land ownership was practically unknown. In the case of the white group this concept was strongly developed, and it was therefore quite natural for the Dutch Governor at the Cape to react to the White-Black contact situation by proclaiming in 1778 the Fish River as the official boundary between the two groups. This deliberate geographical demarcation, coupled with a recognition of the existence of specific Black territories, has remained the basis of the White-Black relationship pattern for many years.
After the Napoleonic Wars, the Cape of Good Hope was formally ceded to Britain. From 1806 on wards, relatively large numbers of English, Scottish and Irish settlers arrived at the Cape.
The Boer-Afrikaner trekkers, increasingly dissatisfied with British colonial rule and with a growing sense of independence, decided to leave British jurisdiction.
From 1835 onwards – at about the same time that the American pioneers undertook their famous westward trek – nearly a quarter of the Cape’s White population left the colony in a series of organized movements, collectively known as the Great Trek. The movement coursed over vast tracts of empty land. Areas that had been inhabited by migratory Bantu tribes had become depopulated as a result of the “Mfecane” (the “crushing”) – a series of Black, specifically Zulu, reigns of terror. For nearly a quarter of a century, there was an era of internecine warfare characterized by the most appalling bloodshed and devastation.
The impis (regiments) of the Zulu king, Shaka, reigned supreme in Natal and even penetrated the Transvaal across the Drakensberg Mountains, leaving a trail of destruction, exterminating or dispersing all other tribes with which they came into contact. Shaka was not the only ruler responsible for this kind of destruction. Mzilikazi, one of his former lieutenants, broke away from the Zulu king and established a following of his own – the Matabele tribe.
The Afrikaner trekkers who moved into Natal encountered various Zulu tribes. In February 1838 Piet Retief, the leader of the trekkers, negotiated with Dingaan, the Zulu king and successor to Shaka, and obtained from him a document granting the trekkers “the place called Port Natal, together with all the land from the Tugela to the Umzimvubu rivers…”. Before Retief and his party could return to their people they were murdered in Dingaan’s kraal. The written contract, was however retrieved by the trekkers and still exists today.
In the light of this, the claim that the Afrikaner nation is a “settler nation” is unfounded and historically incorrect. Considering that the first Whites at the Cape arrived only 32 years after the Pilgrim Fathers set foot on American soil in 1620, it would be fallacious to label present-day White South African society still as a settler or immigrant community.
In fact, there were stable White communities in the South African interior before the founding of most of the Latin American republics. The first West European arrivals at the Cape antedated the colonization of Australia (1788) and New Zealand (1790) by 136 and 138 years respectively. The white community was also economically settled on unoccupied or negotiated land before the most and major black tribes even crossed the modern day borders of South Africa.
Coming closer to the present time, one cannot ignore the significance of the White South African nation’s role in the two world wars, amongst others as a founding member of the the League of Nations and the United Nations.
The white South African nation has been created by the historical forces of more than four centuries. Measured against all accepted historical and demographic criteria, this nation exists as an integral part of the African continent’s socio-political structure.
Today, the Whites of the Republic of South Africa rightfully consider themselves a permanent established African nation, geo-politically rooted in a part of the continent which has in the course of more than four centuries become their only motherland.
Editor’s End Notes & Lie Number Five:
The Zimbabwe Ruins are no longer the Great Zimbabwe complex for a reason. They were not built by any tribe in southern Africa and so could not be maintained nor replicated, anywhere else in southern Africa. If they were of Bantu origin, then instead of stumbling on basic mud and grass huts, White man would have found active gold mining works, walled cities and farms with great irrigation channels. They found none.
There were not even attempts to mimic and replicate the Zimbabwe Ruins anywhere in or around Rhodesia. However, from Egypt to Yemen and beyond there are many buildings, ruins, artifacts and sculptures very similar to the Zimbabwe Ruins. There are also black descendents Yet no one suggests that the Bantu have legitimate land claims over the lands from Egypt to Israel to Yemen and beyond!
There is a great deal of ridicule directed at those who question why the Bantu could only ever build such a city once. The Zimbabwe Ruins politically correct narrative is necessary because:
- Black Bantu must be believed to be “indigenous” and not perpetrators of invasion, conquest, looting, genocide and slavery.
- Black Bantu must be believed to be victims of White oppressors who stole their Advanced Civilizations and claimed them as their own.
- No other race on planet earth other than the Europeans ever practiced slavery. It would be dreadfully annoying if the horrors of centuries of Semitic-Bantu slave trading overshadowed the gentle noble savage myth in favour of men like Cecil Rhodes and David Livingstone who fought to end slavery.
- Since there is no other evidence of a prior civilisation in Rhodesia that knew how to build irrigation channels, a structure of at least two stories, or even make and use a wheel, the achievements of White Rhodesians within a few decades becomes even more astounding! And all without slavery or endless cash injections from Great Britain!
- Whites are in fact owed inter-generational reparations for genocide and the nations they built like Rhodesia, the fantastic opportunities they gave to millions – many of whom were liberated from enslavement by the White man.
Harry Booyen’s trailer video “The AmaBhulu – The White Tribe of Africa” is of interest to the White Tribe of America as well, showing significant parallels of history. South Africa is also the blueprint for that tribe now that the marxist democrats have succeeded in ‘winning’ the election they in fact lost by a landslide:
Joe Biden is a neo-liberal Democrat. None of his polices will do anything for middle class or the poor.
Sadly the truth matters not as the whole world has seen with the U.S. election debacle. Only the narrative matters. For decades Globalists/New World Order advocates have used the mainstream media to great advantage and now social media.
Indeed, David Rockefeller: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine and other publications whos Directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for more than 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers os surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
Hi Alistair. As always a great comment for the material presented here. The truth matters as never before. The world has just watched a Marxist coup d’etat in the US and the systemic failure of all organs of government which have constitutional responsibility for the elctoral process. We have watched both parties join together to certify an election that was self-evidentally fraudulent and stolen. This is where the truth of Rhodesia and South Africa comes into its own for the entire Western world and especially the Anglosphere nations. It was always there. The Western Media – owned and controlled by the perpetrators of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia 1917 (exactly as Solzhenitsyn stated) was and is a powerful asset of the Communist Revolution worldwide – but only if they maintain credibility.