Khoisan demand recognition, land

Hemi300c said:
What I am saying is that Who were the very first inhabitants of the Continent?? Not Sotho, Xhosa etc etc
Click to expand...

We don't really know about the Continent of Africa but the Southern African area, well we know who was here in the 1650's.
Egypt is another story.
 
Hemi300c said:
What I am saying is that Who were the very first inhabitants of the Continent?? Not Sotho, Xhosa etc etc
Click to expand...

1. It was not the Egyptions.
2. It is irrelevant if the Egyptions as a culture pre-date the Koi/San as they did not inhabitat South Africa or parts of it.

So either way, your "lesson" is not relevant to the discussion. Culuturally the Koi/San are the first identifiable culture to inhabit parts of South Africa. They were mostly driven out of their land and as far as I am aware the main culprits for this are the Bantu tribes.

I'm not saying smallpox brought by Europeans didn't almost completely whipe them out, that is possible too

"The Bantu people (Zulus, Twsanas, Sotos etc) began moving south from east central Africa into South Africa in the 1500s and drove the Khoi further south and west. The Bantu killed the Khoi men and used the women and children as slaves. The Khoi ended up escaping to the deserts of Namibia and Botswana as well as the Kalahari desert of South Africa where they lived as hunter-gatherers. Some migrated all the way south to the Cape where they settled down and became known as the San. Some became pastoralists keeping mostly sheep and some cattle. Others became fishermen or "Strandlopers" (beach walkers.) "

As far as I am aware, the khoi/san are the only people regarded as indigenous to South Africa.
 
Hemi300c said:
What I am saying is that Who were the very first inhabitants of the Continent?? Not Sotho, Xhosa etc etc
Click to expand...

From the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period, hunting and gathering cultures known as the Sangoan occupied southern Africa in areas where annual rainfall is less than a metre (1000 mm; 40 in),[3] and today's San and Khoi people resemble the ancient Sangoan skeletal remains. These Late Stone Age people in parts of southern Africa were the ancestors of the Khoisan people who inhabited the Kalahari Desert.

In the 1990s, genomic studies of different peoples around the world found that the Y chromosome of Khoisan men (using samples drawn from several San tribes) share certain patterns of polymorphisms that are distinct from the genomes of all other populations.[9] As the Y chromosome is highly conserved from generation to generation, this type of DNA testing is used by geneticists to determine when different subgroups separated from one another and hence their last common ancestry. The authors of these studies suggested that the Khoisan (actually the San) may have been one of the first populations to differentiate from the most recent common paternal ancestor of all extant humans, the so-called Y-chromosomal Adam by patrilineal descent, estimated to have lived 60,000 to 90,000 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan
 
BTTB said:
That is correct.

The single biggest reason the Khoi and the San, two different tribes, were virtually wiped out was because of smallpox as they had no natural immunity to it. Two or more outbreaks of smallpox, starting in 1734 through to 1755 or thereabouts, by all accounts reduced the population to 10% or less of its original number according to one historic record.
With reduced numbers the remaining Khoi and San fled the Cape northwards to get away from the disease, others may have mingled into what is known as our coloured population today, the rest were probably shot by the white settlers as they became marginalised and stole to survive.

Basically in less than a hundred years of the settlers arriving in the Cape, the Khoi and the San who had been living in the area for thousands if not millions of years were reduced to a small band of people in the Northern Cape, Namibia (Nama) and Botswana. The Germans further reduced the Nama by half during the period 1904 and 1907.

I feel really sorry for these Khoi or San people, they have the historic claim to most of South Africa as we know it today, but are few and humble. Let's see what the Government does for them and how important minority groups are to them.
Click to expand...

Just a small off-topic point, but the san had no concept of land or animal ownership so it wasn't theft - not in their minds anyway.
They saw a cow (a new animal) and it was just like all the other wild animals - one couldn't 'own' an animal so they would hunt it as they always have. Of course the european or african who did actually 'own' the animal would see it as theft, but it was not intentional theft...
 
WilD_CaT said:
1. It was not the Egyptions.
2. It is irrelevant if the Egyptions as a culture pre-date the Koi/San as they did not inhabitat South Africa or parts of it.

So either way, your "lesson" is not relevant to the discussion. Culuturally the Koi/San are the first identifiable culture to inhabit parts of South Africa. They were mostly driven out of their land and as far as I am aware the main culprits for this are the Bantu tribes.

I'm not saying smallpox brought by Europeans didn't almost completely whipe them out, that is possible too

"The Bantu people (Zulus, Twsanas, Sotos etc) began moving south from east central Africa into South Africa in the 1500s and drove the Khoi further south and west. The Bantu killed the Khoi men and used the women and children as slaves. The Khoi ended up escaping to the deserts of Namibia and Botswana as well as the Kalahari desert of South Africa where they lived as hunter-gatherers. Some migrated all the way south to the Cape where they settled down and became known as the San. Some became pastoralists keeping mostly sheep and some cattle. Others became fishermen or "Strandlopers" (beach walkers.) "

As far as I am aware, the khoi/san are the only people regarded as indigenous to South Africa.
Click to expand...

And who gives them the right to decide that "south Africa is theirs / who decided to divide the continent, that is part of my point there were occupants of the continent prior to this and they are , if you go by the local thoughts the first inhabitants of Africa.

You can't name SA because there was no SA.
 
I knew the man many of you know as Benny Alexander/Khoisan X years before he changed his name. He was one of the greatest guys I ever met. I had a lot of time for him and he for me, as we shared similar beliefs. In his later years, he left active politics for the same reasons I did and decided to concentrate his efforts on what he felt were the disenfranchised Khoi people.

He campaigned for their recognition for years before his tragic and untimely demise and this action may well be a continuation of his legacy. For the people involved, their existence is a constant fight and not just here - in Botswana and Namibia too and I wish them the greatest success in their campaign for recognition.
 
Look, the way things are going in this country it wont be long before "South Africa" gets some tribal name for itself. "South Africa" is a region on a map like "North Africa" is where you have Egypt and Morocco etc.

All this name changing and demanding land back is pathetic as we can keep going back and back into our past drumming up old hatred and never moving forward.
 
Hemi300c said:
And who gives them the right to decide that "south Africa is theirs / who decided to divide the continent, that is part of my point there were occupants of the continent prior to this and they are , if you go by the local thoughts the first inhabitants of Africa.

You can't name SA because there was no SA.
Click to expand...


The first people to occupy or homestead the land are regarded as the first legitimate owners. And a land owner can call their land whatever they wish, as it is theirs.

As for who decided to divide the land, politicians and europeans or atleast europeans and other cultures/families mostly.
 
joelus said:
Just a small off-topic point, but the san had no concept of land or animal ownership so it wasn't theft - not in their minds anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is correct at all. They had to have an understanding of property rights, no society can survive without it. To imply they had no system means there law was law of the jungle, kill or be killed.

They also saw the Europeans as invaders.

"The hunters of today have no collective name for themselves. They use their own group names, such as Ju/'hoansi (people who live on the border between northern Namibia and Botswana) or Hai//om (people who live around Etosha National Park).

San = Sanqua = Soaqua was a name given to hunters by the Khoekhoen of the Cape. The word means 'people different from ourselves' and became associated with those without livestock, or people who stole livestock.

The name 'Bushman' or 'Bossiesman' was given to low status people by the Dutch settlers in the 1600's, and referred to those who collected their food off the land and had no domestic animals.

Khoekhoen = Khoikhoi = Kwena is a general name which the herding people of the Cape used for themselves. The word can be translated to mean 'the real people' or 'men of men', meaning 'we people with domestic animals' as opposed to the Sonqua or Bushmen who had none.

Khoesaan = Khoisan is a general term which linguists use for the click language of southern Africa. Physical anthropologists use it as a biological term to distinguish the aboriginal people of southern Africa from their black African farming neighbours. "

It seems their language is demonstrative of their understanding of property rights and theft.
 
My people was here 10 000 000 years before all yours. It's mine. So now start paying me.
 
WilD_CaT said:
I don't think this is correct at all. They had to have an understanding of property rights, no society can survive without it. To imply they had no system means there law was law of the jungle, kill or be killed.

They also saw the Europeans as invaders.

"The hunters of today have no collective name for themselves. They use their own group names, such as Ju/'hoansi (people who live on the border between northern Namibia and Botswana) or Hai//om (people who live around Etosha National Park).

San = Sanqua = Soaqua was a name given to hunters by the Khoekhoen of the Cape. The word means 'people different from ourselves' and became associated with those without livestock, or people who stole livestock.

The name 'Bushman' or 'Bossiesman' was given to low status people by the Dutch settlers in the 1600's, and referred to those who collected their food off the land and had no domestic animals.

Khoekhoen = Khoikhoi = Kwena is a general name which the herding people of the Cape used for themselves. The word can be translated to mean 'the real people' or 'men of men', meaning 'we people with domestic animals' as opposed to the Sonqua or Bushmen who had none.

Khoesaan = Khoisan is a general term which linguists use for the click language of southern Africa. Physical anthropologists use it as a biological term to distinguish the aboriginal people of southern Africa from their black African farming neighbours. "

It seems their language is demonstrative of their understanding of property rights and theft.
Click to expand...

I did say the san had no concept of land or animal ownership.
As you say "...referred to those who collected their food off the land and had no domestic animals.
As you say "...meaning 'we people with domestic animals' as opposed to the Sonqua or Bushmen who had none."

The Khoikhoi herded animals (as opposed to the San who did not) but even then, the animals didn't 'belong' to individual people. The land certainly didn't 'belong' to them. Their were no property rights until westerners arrived and laid claim to the land.
 
joelus said:
I did say the san had no concept of land or animal ownership.
As you say "...referred to those who collected their food off the land and had no domestic animals.
As you say "...meaning 'we people with domestic animals' as opposed to the Sonqua or Bushmen who had none."

The Khoikhoi herded animals (as opposed to the San who did not) but even then, the animals didn't 'belong' to individual people. The land certainly didn't 'belong' to them. Their were no property rights until westerners arrived and laid claim to the land.
Click to expand...

Bud your whole point was that they didn't understand property rights and thus they should not have any claim to property, which seems to me to be a tiny loophole you are trying wiggle in, in order to justify not giving back any land back and still argue you are for property rights.

As I pointed out, whether they are herders or not, they still understood the concept, even if they didn't demarkate land according to European standards. Hell, even if they are nomadic, I'm sure you've herd of the holiday home or people with more than 2 homes, or people in the states who move south to Florida for the winter months, do they lose their homes in the North because they move according to the seasons (Much like nomads would)?

Bottom line is no. No loophole exists.

So rather not try and wiggle in the loophole and admit that justice would be served by returning their land back to them.
 
WilD_CaT said:
Bud your whole point was that they didn't understand property rights and thus they should not have any claim to property, which seems to me to be a tiny loophole you are trying wiggle in, in order to justify not giving back any land back and still argue you are for property rights.

As I pointed out, whether they are herders or not, they still understood the concept, even if they didn't demarkate land according to European standards. Hell, even if they are nomadic, I'm sure you've herd of the holiday home or people with more than 2 homes, or people in the states who move south to Florida for the winter months, do they lose their homes in the North because they move according to the seasons (Much like nomads would)?

Bottom line is no. No loophole exists.

So rather not try and wiggle in the loophole and admit that justice would be served by returning their land back to them.
Click to expand...

NO NO NO NO, :cry: That was NOT my point and you've read my entire post out of context. Total misunderstanding.
BTTB made a comment here that the rest [of the san] were probably shot by the white settlers as they became marginalised and stole to survive. I bolded that bit in my post here, which you responded to.
In my post I was pointing out that to them, the san, it wasn't stealing as they had no concept of land or animal ownership, which is why I said "Of course the european or african who did actually 'own' the animal would see it as theft, but it was not intentional theft...". I was talking about the san being shot as theives when they had no concept of 'theft' when it came to animals.

I've no idea where you got the 'I'm looking for a loophole to justify not giving them their land back' because I never said anything like that anywhere. Of course they understand the concept of land ownership in todays day :wtf:

(Although I have to say, your holiday home example is daft, you can't lose what you don't own. To the san, the land was inhabited by many groups of people, by animals and spirits. When they left one part of the land they didn't lock it up and say no trespassers while we're gone. Other groups of san might arrive after them, animals fed off the land and drank the water. Do you think the san chased them away and said, no no, this is my land, you're not allowed to eat my plants and drink my water - they didn't have a concept of owning the land - it belonged to all living creatures)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X