Why black Africans are considered savages.

[ches]

Originally Posted by 31-05-1961

I didn't get that from Apartheid history books, but read it somewhere on the internet, can't remember the site.

Don't believe all you read on the internet.

Originally Posted by 31-05-1961

What I should've said was 'no Bantu-speaking' blacks (Nguni, Tswana, Sotho etc.) lived anywhere near Cape Town and this is the point I was getting at, in response to Bantu Africans' claims that whites took their land. They in fact took the Khoi and San lands in Natal and the Transkei area (Please correct me if I am wrong).

When the Bantu people arrived in the Natal and Transkei region, they did come across Khoi-San people. The Khoi-San people who didn't migrate south/west were incorporated into the Bantu tribes, as equals. Many of the Bantu people in South Africa today have Khoi-San ancestors too. The clicks in the Bantu languages of South Africa were adopted from the Khoi-San languages when those people were integrated into the tribes.

The Afrikaners who moved eastwards (literally hunting Khoi Khoi people to extinction as they went) stopped their eastward progression around the time that the British showed up, because they encountered the Xhosa at the Fish River. They wanted to British to run the Xhosa off the land to the east of the Fish River, and when the British refused, and at the same time abolished slavery, they decided to trek. The Xhosa were well established all the way down to the Fish River by the time white folks showed up.

Originally Posted by 31-05-1961

Thus the Khoi were driven towards the Cape and in turn into the Kalahari.

Not entirely true. Remains in the Peers Cave in Fish Hoek (south Cape Peninsula) date back to near the time of the missing link. The Khoi-San and their ancestors have been in the Western Cape for thousands of years. They were not displaced there by the Bantu Migration.

Originally Posted by 31-05-1961

So it is them who in fact should be most vocal about land claims etc, not other black Africans, as 'their' land (according to their views on white land ownership) is not 'theirs' but the San people's.

Really, what it boils down to is that the original "contracts" over land that the colonists entered into were not exactly valid contracts. A valid contract requires intent on both sides. The colonists' intent was that the land belonged to them in the western tradition, while the tribal leaders' intent was that the colonists use the land. There is no traditional concept of land ownership. The colonists knew the intent of the tribal leaders, but deceived them. This is one of the reasons why Bantu people say the land was taken from them.

Originally Posted by 31-05-1961

It could've been the other way round, with black Africans colonising parts of Europe, but unlike white Europeans they didn't have the capability of travelling across oceans.

Europe was far more densely populated than Africa at that time, in fact it still is. Africans didn't lack the ability, they lacked the need. If there had been land pressure, they might have travelled, but there was no reason to. European society was more advanced based on need, not any kind of superior ability. The Maori and other Pacific Islanders were the first colonists, colonising Australia, New Zealand and other South Sea islands thousands of years before Europeans took to the oceans. My point is that ocean voyaging doesn't require much technology.

Originally Posted by 31-05-1961

My post was mostly written out of frustration as a result of the continuous attacks aimed at whites for their robbery of the black man's land, even though we brought with our colonising technology etc. which blacks all gladly use without question. I agree with you that perhaps white colonisers went about their business the wrong way (ie Apartheid, racism etc) but their should be some credit given to white Europeans and the positive things they brought with them. After all the attacks on white South Africans for Apartheid and colonialism i believe it is fair to acknowledge the white man's positive contribution to SA society.

I guess that any value in the "technology" that white settlers brough to South Africa is overshadowed by the parasitic manner in which they used it. You just don't get far in celebrating a piece of ingenuity brought to South Africa before you get slammed in the face with the injustice with which it was applied.

[31-05-1961]

Originally Posted by ches

Europe was far more densely populated than Africa at that time, in fact it still is. Africans didn't lack the ability, they lacked the need. If there had been land pressure, they might have travelled, but there was no reason to. European society was more advanced based on need, not any kind of superior ability.

I obviously agree that Europe was and is more densely densely populated than Africa, but don't you think you are making excuses for black Africans? I mean didn't blacks in Africa feel the need to advance themselves and their societies? I mean the Oriental peoples had it, the Arabs had it. Whites might have 'needed' to explore and colonise, but what about all the myriad of inventions and advances they made. If I were to list them all i would run out of page. And anyway the original settlement of Cape Town was for economic reasons and for profit wasn't it? Not because of 'land pressure'.

Originally Posted by ches

My point is that ocean voyaging doesn't require much technology.

Exactly my point too. It didn't require much technology, and yet it wasn't achieved. 'Land pressure' aside, where was their urge to explore their world and colonise other lands? Beyond Southern Africa, i mean?

Originally Posted by ches

You just don't get far in celebrating a piece of ingenuity brought to South Africa before you get slammed in the face with the injustice with which it was applied.

I agree with you there, as I said in my above post, and whites should've been fairer and more just.

PS. Thanks for the history lesson

[ches]

Originally Posted by 31-05-1961

I obviously agree that Europe was and is more densely densely populated than Africa, but don't you think you are making excuses for black Africans? I mean didn't blacks in Africa feel the need to advance themselves and their societies? I mean the Oriental peoples had it, the Arabs had it. Whites might have 'needed' to explore and colonise, but what about all the myriad of inventions and advances they made. If I were to list them all i would run out of page. And anyway the original settlement of Cape Town was for economic reasons and for profit wasn't it? Not because of 'land pressure'.

Exactly my point too. It didn't require much technology, and yet it wasn't achieved. 'Land pressure' aside, where was their urge to explore their world and colonise other lands? Beyond Southern Africa, i mean?

I just think that you're putting too much emphasis on ocean travel. The Bantu people migrated from the plains of West Africa, through tropical rain forest, across savannah and down to South Africa. Isn't that adventurous? Their diet and lifestyle would've had to change radically as they crossed the tropics, for instance.

Also, the early Zimbabweans were mining gold long before the shiny stuff made its way to Europe.

Really, the only developmental fault you might be able to find in Bantu society is that they didn't develop writing. In fact, Bantu languages are not advanced, with only around 10,000 pure words in, for instance, Xhosa. Contrast this to English, which has over 1,000,000 words. Still, you can't castigate all indigenous Africans for this, because the Khoi-San had rock art that dates way back. Really, the society just didn't require written language and necessity is the mother invention.

I'd agree that European ocean voyaging wasn't about land pressure entirely, but the financial basis for it did arise out of a more complex society that in turn rose up out of population pressure.


Any time you want to debate South African history, I'll gladly spar with you

[31-05-1961]

It's funny because I was actually going to bring up the language aspect in my next post. Well you already beat me to it!

Originally Posted by ches

Any time you want to debate South African history, I'll gladly spar with you

From what you've shown me, I wouldn't dare take you on!

[Brotherman]

Of course Africans have been in SA before the whites came with their apartheid. Now the Africans have to grow economically.

[Daxk]

Hi Ches,
reading through this old thread out of Interest.You said;
"The Khoi-San people who didn't migrate south/west were incorporated into the Bantu tribes, as equals. Many of the Bantu people in South Africa today have Khoi-San ancestors too. The clicks in the Bantu languages of South Africa were adopted from the Khoi-San languages when those people were integrated into the tribes."Somewhere else you said they were "Adopted" into the tribes and created as equals.
Can you let me have a source for that?

My understanding ,especially from Peter Beckers many Books which were transcribed directly from Zulu Tribal Folklore, was that the Khoi, San and strandlopers were invaded, the men killed and the Women taken as wives.

The Bantu tribes did as man has since time began, taken by force and in the same way, forced back by the "Superior" technology available to Whites at that time.

You are trying to explain what was common practice since one man picked up a club and looked at his neighbour.
Until William Wilberforce, Slave trading was a profession,and women only got the vote when??
Force was the Norm, wether it was migrating Nguni from Central Africa or white Immigrants moving South, wether we think it was right or wrong is immaterial, it was what happened at the time.

Next, "They wanted to British to run the Xhosa off the land to the east of the Fish River, and when the British refused, and at the same time abolished slavery,"
Partly true, The Dutch,English, Irish,German emigrants had been trekking North and east for Decades before the Groot trek and had established farms and Hunting Camps well into what became the Transvaal and Lowveld.
Apart from Isolated incidents they also seemed to have lived peacably with Africans they came across.
The British Anglicised the schools,imposed taxes, limited religous freedoms and Land was becoming scarce.
Although a lot of the Dutch Settlers had slaves, very few of the trekboers did as they were basically Poor farmers and hunters, and slaves, to buy and keep were expensive.

The Xhosa Wars were another deciding factor as the Brits used the farmers as a buffer zone and would only sell them farms on the outskirts while the commiserrat raided the Xhosa for cattle to feed the troops.

"The Xhosa were well established all the way down to the Fish River by the time white folks showed up."
Can you give a source for this?
Neither the Dutch East India Companies or the early British Middleast India Company reports or the Early Mission stations make any mention of the Xhosa until the early 1700's


"[FONT="Garamond"]what it boils down to is that the original "contracts" over land that the colonists entered into were not exactly valid contracts. A valid contract requires intent on both sides. The colonists' intent was that the land belonged to them in the western tradition, while the tribal leaders' intent was that the colonists use the land. There is no traditional concept of land ownership. The colonists knew the intent of the tribal leaders, but deceived them. This is one of the reasons why Bantu people say the land was taken from them."[/FONT

]See above, Force Majeur was the order of the day, Africans were nomadic,
Studies of societies who grew in learning found a direct Correlation between the Cultivation of Wheat and the Domestication of Animals Starting with the Sumerians then Asia, Europe, Indain Continent and the lack of Civilisational growth in those Cultures who remained Nomadic.
(Comparison,Mongols, Africa, American red Indian, Aboriginal, Maori) iro language, writing,etc.. The Mayan of the same period had developed sophisticated Calenders and Mathematical Formula
African s had conquered Sea Travel, if you look at the Negroid statues in Polynesia it is obvious that they were partly colonised,

[Moonwalker]

this post by KEN TUSHONKA should be removed a.s.a.p. by either ADMIN or the moderator responsible...