Talk:Bantu peoples of South Africa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconAfrica: South Africa Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (assessed as Top-importance).

early history

this people has a vibrant early history, which needs much more detail in this article. ive added a little. please help. Covalent 05:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk tsk

A few points:

  • The article claims that "the two language groups are easi to distinguish" basically since the
    Sesotho
    does have click consonants.
  • The languages are not "dialects of Bantu language". There is no such thing as the "Bantu language".
  • Should this article, which in the introduction says that the use of the term "Bantu" as an ethnic label is insulting (at least in South Africa), then use "Bantu" as an ethnic label throughout the rest of the article?

Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Á[reply]

Recent edit by User:Anlace

This edit is problematic for two reasons:

  1. Calling the people "Stone Age" is obviously incorrect.
  2. The part about the Waterberg looks suspiciously like the apparently Original Research edits I reverted from
    User:Mark Dingemanse
    on my talk page.

Any thoughts? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 12:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Stone Age" is the term used for this aspect of Bantu migration by: William Taylor, Gerald Hinde and David Holt-Biddle, The Waterberg, Struik Publishers, Capetown, South Africa (2003)
ISBN 1-86872-822-6. Anlace 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

It's obviously incorrect, isn't it? "Stone age" Nguni groups less than 300 years ago? Am I missing something here? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops my mistake. i checked the Taylor source and it says "Iron Age" and attributes the reference time frame as 450AD. i have altered the text accordingly. thanks for your help on this. Anlace 21:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, kewl. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Grand Master Plan!

An article which claims that the ethnic label is insulting should not then use it repeatedly. These South African articles shouldn't all be repeating the exact same history about Difaqane etc. since it is redundant. If the ethnic label is insulting then the title shouldn't use it as if it is valid (that's your fault too, Ezeu).

My Grand Master Plan Eagle 150X7 will try to fix all these problems, beginning with moving this article to

Bantu speaking peoples of South Africa
in a few days if no one objects.

Any thoughts? Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 1 of The Plan complete. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 16:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article being renamed to correlate with actuality and the truth of the matter

I'm renaming this article to denote Bantu as an adjective in

talk) 13:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Untrammeled is right that the current title is not acceptable, but at the same time you cannot make up whole categories on your own either. I propose 'Bantu language speaking peoples of South Africa' if you want to use a ethnic linguistic approach which the article's previous title were based on. But why not simply 'Black South Africans' which is the term people are most likely to actually use or search for and does not rely on any dubious and dated linguistic or ethnic categorizations. Francoisdjvr (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Black South African without clarity explanation to it Francoisdjvr

The problem is that any African or nationality can fall under being named Black South African, a Namiban Black, an Angolan, a Mozambican, Lesotho-an of

talk) 15:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

That's an excellent point. I checked the article on White South Africans and there is for example quite a bit of content on Portuguese speaking South Africans too. The article in turn links to more specific groups like Afrikaner and English or Portuguese. That way the article can avoid ethnic and linguistic classification but be inclusive to citizenship? So, could we not use the title Black South African, but expand the article's content with reference to groups like say Nigerian South Africans? Francoisdjvr (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 16:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move 14 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: CONSENSUS NOT TO MOVE. No obvious title was presented as a target for the move. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Bantu peoples in South Africa → ? – Untrammeled has moved this page several times now and can't seem to decide on what it should be called. They have been told to open a talk request but seem unable to do that. Thus I'm opening it for them. I have no opinion on the correct name but it needs to stop moving. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Oppose, consistency with Bantu peoples article. SnowFire (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So an article named by a racial slur to these people seems logical to consistency, in their country they legislatively deem being called Bantu a racial slur
      talk) 09:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Then taking from your reply to Dicklyon,
    talk) 21:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose per
    WP:COMMONNAME. What does "People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages" even mean? It's bizarre English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose As I have been pinged I might as well join this discussion. The word "Bantu" (without any additional convoluted explification) is a perfectly legitimate and cogent ethnolinguistic term. It has been and currently is widely used by professional ethnologists, linguists, historians, anthropologists, and others, for many years. Just because it was for some time (in the past) used in an offensive way in one small part of the globe does not discredit it's proper meaning and correct use. There simply is no valid case for this move proposal. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article we're speaking about is about that small part of the globe, it's not by mistake. These people legitimately recognize themselves and officially as speakers of bantu than being Bantu people in being their ethnic grouping, when using the word BANTU. To how others make convenience of their work as you mention professional ethnologists, linguists, historians, anthropologists, and others, bantu speakers (of South Africa) are not in the business of infringing others forcefully but affect their actual self, if you see the fact is bantu speaking then you decide in your comforts to call them bantu people you prove yourself ignorant or trialing imposition on them. Now you want them to break your doors down to enforce obvious truth for you, I do not understand what do you want from them. It is by culture of Wikipedia I saw to add actual value here related to these people in terming them appropriately.
      talk) 23:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 22 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: proposal withdrawn by nominator and superseded by the request below —C.Fred (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


talk) 13:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Why is there now three move requests? This is why I move protected the page in the first place as Untrammeled can't settle on one name for the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have in the last open request, the other two are closed, I learned my errors about my first title from

talk) 15:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Untrammeled. No I will not. There is no consensus for that title at all. You suggested it and two people opposed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • talk) 16:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The reason people keep opposing all of these moves is that you are creating complicated formulations to avoid saying what is perfectly normal English. Just stop. --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • talk) 16:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I told you before, the long, rambling, never before used phrase that you are attempting to change the title to is the exact meaning of the actual phrase "Bantu peoples in South Africa". That's why we don't need to move it. Just like we don't need to move (for example) fork to "utensil with multiple prongs used to transport food from the plate to the mouth". See how silly that looks? THAT'S what your requests look like. --Khajidha (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does 'Bantu peoples in South Africa' cater to be the latest term proposed, before we speak of it
talk) 18:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I have no idea what you are trying to say with "cater to be the latest term proposed". And I told you, "Bantu people in South Africa" means exactly what your proposal of Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples means, only it is something that someone would actually say. --Khajidha (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and you imply you know English. There's no way Bantu peoples in South Africa can mean Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples, it's not as exclusive, it does cater to the title (includes it in the the Bantu people...title) but it's not the title, it talks of Bantus in South Africa but the article itself is exclusive to speak of Bantus/speakers of it from or of South Africa and you then tell me Bantu peoples in South Africa means that. This Wikipedia can be used for whatever intentions irregardless as long as this is the quality of participants it has to protect its content. You might have maybe taken to say my errors in my first title but I think you're not seeing things very well, look at Bantu peoples in South Africa to how does it define to be only about the local Bantu speakers of South Africa, this is ridiculous.
    talk) 23:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
English phrases don't have to spell out their exact limitations in their wording, they are defined by their usage. And general usage shows that "Bantu peoples in South Africa" means exactly what I said. --Khajidha (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • General usage where, in South Africa or just people assuming it, imposing it. Some South Africans I know have never used Bantu as something related to their ethnicity, all actually, they are Black or African or whatever related to their micro terms. When you say general usage where is this used by South Africans? Let me not go off to earlier points, the point here is that you can see Bantu peoples in South Africa isn't speaking only of local South African native Bantu people so how can it title these people.
    talk) 00:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS. There are leanings toward changing the title, but discussion on that matter never reached a conclusion before Untrammeled launched a fourth RM. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


talk) 16:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Why is there now three move requests? This is why I move protected the page in the first place as Untrammeled can't settle on one name for the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have in the last open request, the other two are closed, I learned my errors about my first title from
talk) 15:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
And as I told you in that discussion, while this phrasing is comprehensible, it is not something that would actually be used in English. --Khajidha (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not closed just because you say so. It's always a good idea to learn about Wikipedia procedure before you start doing things like opening RMs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • talk) 16:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Discussion: What title meets WP guidelines and best reflects this article's contents?

I just formally closed the two prior RMs: one because there was clear consensus in the discussion against the move, and one because the proposer withdrew their proposal (or created this one to supersede it). Looking at the discussion, here's what I'm seeing:

  • Untrammeled has legitimate concerns about the phrasing of "Bantu peoples" in the title, based on the current meaning and implications of the term in South Africa.
  • Untrammeled has proposed various names, many of which have been objected to because they are cumbersome in English or are outright grammatically incorrect.
  • Discussion has proceeded around a pattern of objections to the new name.

Rather than focus on a specific name, I want to refocus discussion around a number of points.

  1. Is the article about peoples based upon ethnicity/lineage, or is it based on their first language?
  2. How are these people(s) identified in other articles? Can we harmonize the terminology? I notice that in a template at the bottom of the article, "Bantu-speaking" is used with the link to this article.
  3. If it is based upon ethnicity, what term do we need to use in the article to reflect current accepted usage? (By comparison: One of my most recent edits was an article about indigenous peoples in the United States. An unregistered editor had changed the article to the outdated term "Indians"; I reverted back to "Native Americans", which is the most common name for such people in the US.)
  4. If it is based upon language, do we need some qualifier such as "native speakers of" to specify people(s) for whom these are their native languages?
  5. Does the term reflect common usage?
    WP:COMMONNAME
    provides guidance for this area of article naming.

Again, I see why there are legitimate concerns about the article remaining at this title. However, I think we need to work to generate consensus among a wide number of editors for a new title, and a discussion about what title would work is the best way forward. Until such consensus is reached, however, the status quo ante will be maintained, and the article will remain at this title. —C.Fred (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answers --

1-C.Fred The article is about indigenous South African Ethnic groups that speak languages under the umbrella term called Bantu.

2-They are identified as Black South African (with a elaboration besides it), African which is fading to reason as it is ridiculous for South Africa is in Africa, never have these people id themselves as Bantus but they take it as their languages that's where it ends.

3-They aren't of a single Ethicity. Bantu nations in South Africa titling is outdated and derogatory to these specific people. We also find out it isn't the right usage of English if Bantu is taken as languages because people speak languages they are not of languages when you id them

4-It was explained in a dialog that native South African is somewhat outdated based on that native terminologies are outdated in South Africa hence using Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South African peoples titling, and not all native South Africans speak Bantu traditionally

5-This Bantu peoples/nations isn't really common but mistakenly taken so, what's common is Bantu speakers when using Bantu even across other African countries as far as I know.

talk) 00:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I would say that it is the common usage. Britannica has an article on "Bantu peoples". The Institut Pasteur conducted genomic research on these people and reported the results using Bantus, Bantu peoples, and Bantu-speaking peoples in free variation in their press release. "Bantu peoples" was even used in direct quotations from the researchers themselves. This is normal anthropological terminology. --Khajidha (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Between Bantu peoples of South Africa/Bantu peoples from South Africa and Bantu peoples in South Africa, which should be for this article
talk) 02:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I have no preference among those options, they are all equivalent. --Khajidha (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. No comments on this requested move other than the nominator, who has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, in almost three weeks. Kinu t/c 16:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


talk) 22:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)—Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 16:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 22:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It is implicit that the nominator supports their own proposal. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title

Created an account to say this = Bantu peoples in South Africa is not a very good title for this page though Apartheid has long gone this title emphasises on its denaturalization of Black South Africans in their native land. Black South Africans is more true to the page. Nutty am I (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I reached this page from Apartheid and was astonished to see such a racist 'separate development' term still being used on Wikipedia. English people are not called English people because they speak English, the reverse is true: their language is English because of where they live.
I can see that there have been a few attempts above to rename the article. In my view, they have failed because they have fallen into the racial classification trap. Race does not exist and never has: humanity is the same species from northern Canada to Tasmania, Europeans in history were confused by the gap in continuous gradual climate-adapted changes in surface physiognomy caused by the Sahara, and the victors get to write the history. We live in more enlightened times.
So, rather than have yet another RtM that fails because not enough people like the proposed alternative, let's start from the position that the current name is an unacceptable embarrassment to Wikipedia and get to work on finding a name that will gain broad consensus. --Red King (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Red King here 100% - there is no such thing as race - so why is this article still using the term "blacks" and "whites"? the Republic of South Africa (RSA) is called a 'rainbow nation' for a reason because referring to the population in terms of "white" or "black" totally negates and erases the importance of the Khoikhoi; and the Saan people; as well as the people of Indian/Chinese/Malay descent and the Camissa people. Also - there are some Bantu-speaking people in RSA who are decedents of people brought over from the Caribbean....how should they also be figured into things? e11e99 (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a simple page move will solve this problem, considering that there is Race (human categorization), and also Bantu peoples, and dozens of others to which the same criticism applies. So maybe the article can be cut down to the description of the term, and then sit at Bantu (racial term), just like e.g. Hottentot (racial term)? --Pgallert (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly would not propose that Wikipedia be censored to remove the reality of hundreds of years of racism, whether in history or its modern consequences. The complicating factor in this case is that the term 'Bantu people(s)" is one used by the Apartheid regime in its racial 'purity' laws. "Bantu-speaking people" is, to me, a more NPOV term. Interestingly, the link from the Apartheid article that brought me here was a pipe to "black South Africans", who are not all from the Bantu-speaking ethnic group, and certainly not all Bantu-speaking. It is certainly not going to be easy but it can be solved if we look for solutions rather than for objections. --Red King (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • But yes, ways to split the article might be a way to a solution. --Red King (talk)
  • I agree that this is an embarrassment. As others have said the term 'Bantu' could refer to very many groups, most of which are not South African. A further complication is that in some places the term might be offensive, while in other places the term is not offensive. So, a split might be in order. But we still need to settle on a term specific to South Africa. We should get a consensus on what term we should be using for South Africa. In the past I have advocated for 'Black South African' or 'Bantu-language speaking South Africans'.
    • 'Black South African' is the most NPOV. Not all black South Africans speak Bantu, not all Bantu-speaking South African are black. So maybe the other half of the split might be something like "Bantu language in South Africa"? --Red King (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The trouble with 'Black South African' is that its definition will utilise some sort of racism again. We seem to have consensus that Bantu is a language group, and that languages do not define peoples. Why not just Peoples of South Africa? --Pgallert (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is "Bantu peoples" different from "Bantu-speaking peoples"? We speak of "Germanic peoples" meaning "peoples who speak a Germanic language". This is exactly the same. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS - "English people are not called English people because they speak English, the reverse is true: their language is English because of where they live." The country of England received its name because it was the "land of the Angles". A people who were defined by their language and culture. --Khajidha (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the use of 'Bantu people' as link target for black South Africans. --Red King (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem with the article title, that's a problem with the link.--Khajidha (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the real issue is what links here?

An article of this name should be entirely reasonable and innocent. The topic is notable and not intrinsically value-laden. For me, the shock was to arrive at this article via a

wp:pipe from 'black South African'. For US readers, this is equivalent of clicking on 'black American' and ending up at the N word. The Apartheid regime used the term Bantu pejoratively for all black South Africans, irrespective of their language or ethnic group. It invented the Bantustans
to make black South Africans effectively stateless and without even vestigial rights in their own country. The word carries a huge burden of history.

But can we move forward? Can we begin to treat this article like Swahili people, just factual? I suggest that maybe we can, but only if we rigorously police what links here for sloppy/lazy pipes. Does that make sense? --Red King (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by this discussion.
Indigenous_people_of_South_Africa
- not to 'Bantu peoples in South Africa'.
Also, if the article introduction is true, and referring to a group of people as 'Bantu people(s)' is considered offensive, then the content about those people should probably be moved to an article title that is neutral. Content about the racist term could be a section in that article, or its own article, as Pgallert suggested above.
There is also an article section related to this here: Ethnic_groups_in_South_Africa#Black_South_Africans. Not sure how that fits in. LaTeeDa (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, someone came up with a clever solution to the problem, just look a 'what links here' and link it to something neutral. Like all good ideas, so simple that I want to know why I didn't think of it first. --Red King (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger problem with this article

The topic of this article is an important one, in part because the untruth that the Bantu-culture people only arrived in South Africa around the same time as the European people is widely believed and propagated in English speaking countries if not also elsewhere.

The article reads as though it was first written embodying that untruth, and then others have then added material to debunk that. However, the truth would be much better represented by beginning with the idea that the Bantu-culture people have been living in South Africa for at least 2000 years, and providing as equal a weight to each of those years as possible.

Regarding the name of this entry: outside of southern Africa, the term "Bantu" completely lacks the derogatory associations it has within it. As this article is written in South African English however, the use of the word is problematic. Unfortunately, there is no sufficiently specific alternate word that exists to describe the topic. Hence the use of it throughout the South African history articles on Wikipedia.

This article might be productively merged with Early history of South Africa to lessen the perceived differentiation between "Bantu" and "Khoisan" people, but the term "Bantu" would still be necessary within that article.Transient-understanding (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is a convoluted mess

I wanted to learn about the pre-colonial history of South Africa, expected an article and found a scrappy pamphlet. In this form, it should better be removed completely. 87.132.253.88 (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

history

As far as I understand the Bantu peoples have been living in South Africa for about 2000 years. Shouldn't this section focus on that, and not just the 46 years of Apartheid? This section reads more like a socal justice undergraduate paper about Apartheid than Bantu History. It should be edited extensively.Johnmars3 (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Race

I'm not black I'm African, Get it right Wowu1010 (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where’s the history?

I thought I was going read and hopefully learn something about Bantu history. (Apparently, Bantu is a derogatory term, at least I learnt that). Where’s the history though? I couldn’t tell you anything about B*ntu history over the last 1000 years. All I received from this article was that essentially some Europeans made up the claim that there was no significant B*ntu history in SA and this was their justification for colonialism. Okay, so where’s the history? 2A00:801:7B3:70B7:245C:11C9:1AE8:4298 (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bantu_peoples_of_South_Africa&oldid=1195367346"