There’s a fun argument to be had here

You know, the South Africa for Africans argument?

The first of these discoveries is genetic. Swedish and South African scientists have made the origin of us — modern human beings — an even more mind-bogglingly gradual phenomenon than we used to think. Here is what they found. A skeleton of a boy who died 2,000 years ago at a place called Ballito Bay has yielded a good sample of preserved DNA. He was a Khoe-San, that is to say an indigenous native of southern Africa of the kind once called “bushmen”, who still live in the Kalahari desert.

But unlike all today’s Khoe-San he had no DNA from black Africans or white Europeans in him. Neither had yet arrived in southern Africa. So comparing the Ballito boy’s DNA to all modern people’s DNA made it possible to calculate when we last shared a common ancestor with him.

That is, the Bantu are just as much invaders as whitey has been. Indeed, for the Western Cape, the Bantu came later. The same is true of almost all of Africa south of, about, Ghana. The Bantu there are as new as the Germanic tribes are to Western, or even Central, Europe.

Which does pose something of a problem for the idea that the land should belong to the indigenes. Which indigenes?

23 comments on “There’s a fun argument to be had here

  1. The interesting thing is that Ballito Bay is far up the east coast in a summer rainfall area. The Bantu migration westwards was stopped by the unsuitability of the winter rainfall area for summer crops, first sorghum and millet then later, courtesy of the slave trade with the Americas, maize. They only arrived in numbers into the Western Cape in the 1980s as apartheid had kept it “a Coloured Labour Preference Area” ie for the employment of descendants of the Khoisan and freed slaves. Of course this hasn’t stopped the ANC from requiring Bantu quotas in areas that have only recently acquired any.

  2. Ah, but he was black & therefo’ a bro’. Even if he din’ know it.
    Black lives matter!

  3. Yeah, it’s the same with the ‘Native Americans’. The tribes were fighting with each other and invading and kicking each other off land for centuries before European settlers.

    Now, whichever tribe happened to be in control of a particular area when the ‘whites’ arrived is treated as if they had owned and should own that land for all past time and for the rest of human existence. or be compensated for it.

    Or maybe be allowed to build a casino there, whereon anyone with so much as 1/32 Native American blood suddenly rediscovers their roots and becomes a millionaire.

  4. “Yeah, it’s the same with the ‘Native Americans’. The tribes were fighting with each other and invading and kicking each other off land for centuries before European settlers.”

    I read somewhere that they’ve recently found remains of an inhabitant of North America thats far older than the ‘Native’ Americans. Who the redskins obviously kicked out………

  5. “They’re still chanting ‘One settler, one bullet’ in South Africa:”

    Which I why my “White SA Refugee Resettlement Plan” is an essential.

  6. I have been watching a lot of rugby from New Zealand recently – a mixed affair – and have been greatly enjoying the solemnity of the haka, by which a group of people mostly pretending to be Maori celebrate the violwence of the people who butchered and ate the (then) indigenous Moriori people of New Zealand, and European rugby players, fans and journalists pretend to care. I don’t know why their war dance should be accorded so much respect, but if it must be can’t we reply with one of our own? I’d quite like the Lions to form two ranks and mime shooting them by way of reply (though this might not help with the score, esp vs the All Blacks).

  7. “I’d quite like the Lions to form two ranks and mime shooting them by way of reply”

    How about they line up, turn around and moon the All Blacks? Mooning people is a traditional way of demonstrating derision in these isles, who are they to question our cultural ways?

  8. DocBud

    They’d better hope a Bushman with an AK47 doesn’t turn up and shoot all the settlers, black as well as white.

    It’s OK – The UN will soon make this sort of cultural appropriation illegal, which is bound to stop it.

    Unless they are Russian Bushmen of course.

  9. “Which does pose something of a problem for the idea that the land should belong to the indigenes”

    Another straw man, Tim? Who seriously suggests any such thing, rather than that it should belong to those who currently live there? Even in a nutty place like Zimbabwe they never suggested for a moment that rich US-based people of Zimbabwean extraction should own the country.

  10. @Dave: during the period of land confiscation in Zim ostensibly to veterans of the”liberation” but mainly pals of the ruling class there was a joke about landlocked Zim’s navy because its storm troopers had all been semen at the time.

  11. @ Dave
    Ethnic cleansing is all about getting rid of the people who actually livbe there and replacing them with descendants of people who used to live there – or with people who claim undisprovably because the records have conveniently disappeared – to be descended from people who used to live there. Have you heard of the State of Israel?

  12. Out of Africa hypothesis: if we all originated from there why can’t those who want to return especially if they bring skills like an ability to create value and organise sanitation and infrastructure and feel no obligation to redistribute aid money around their patrons and dependents?

  13. “Who wold pass as ‘indigenous’ on mainland Britain and by what arbitrary reasoning?”

    The arbitrary rule used by most of the WASP hating classes is that the brown folk who were living in a region when the WASPs turned up to turn them into an Empire are de facto the indigenous population. Which for most of the world means whoever was living there in the 18th and 19th centuries.

    No-one seems to care whether the brown folk in Strawhutistan in 1700 had in fact displaced some other brown folk themselves over the previous few thousand years, so why should we in the UK worry about Romans, Normans or Danes? Just as Time Immemorial is defined as something happening before the year 1189, we can define the indigenous population as whoever was in charge in say 1650.

  14. “unlike all today’s Khoe-San he had no DNA from black Africans or white Europeans in him. Neither had yet arrived in southern Africa.”

    It’s beautiful when ancient DNA backs up facts known from history, archeology, or linguistics.

    In a perfect world we’d be told how they knew he died 2000 years ago, without a Murdoch impediment getting in the way.

  15. When racism is so terrible – everyone seems to look for race to claim (or reject)
    Nobody speaks up for the great tribes of left handers that ruled the world once.

  16. Bringing up the Bering ice bridge migration theory is seen as racist and just a claim by the colonialists to try and refute the claims of the indigenous people to have always been there, seems to me as a previous commentator said it’s so far back that it’s effectively time immemorial anyway and arguing about geological time is silly

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.