When the Dutch entered the Natal they found the landscape strangely empty. The peoples who onced lived there had been exterminated of driven out by the Zulus. There was no ceremonial war with Zulus, they were out to kill you. This was something new to Africans.
"Grow up" as in stop using culture, genetics, history, philosophy, economics etc for ideological purposes. The idea of the "noble savage" so beloved of many on the left is arrant nonsense. As much as a quarter to a third of all young male skeletons from hunter gatherer societies were found to have died of war traumas. Life for the gentle native people was quite brutal and sexist - and environmentally destructive too.
thats because the british were there before the afrikkkaners and fought bloody wars against the zulus, leaving the land a barren warzone. youre going to have to do better than use racist afrikkkaner mythology to win that argument lol. shame on you.
the region of natal was inhabited by small numbers of zulu by the time the afrikkkaners arrived in search of slaves to work their plantations in the south. various slave raiding parties allied with the afrikkkaner slavers (portuguese, griqua) also created this vaccum in natal and it wasnt until the zulu gained more numbers by uniting other african ethnic groups from the north into the wider Zulu Kingdom that they were able to challenge the white slavers/colonists.
The Dutch arrived about the same time the Zulus did. British arrived later. This history interests me because I have Bantu origins.
The same is true in the Americas. There were civilized native tribes, and they like the settlers suffered dearly from such as the Comanches, Apaches, etc.
the zulu were there 1,000 years before afrikkkaners and you say the history interests you lmao, not so much as to research simple timelines it seems. bet you are 1/8 cherokee too huh
According to linguistic evidence—alone—and historians, including; John H. Robertson, Rebecca Bradley, T Russel, Fabio Silva and James Steele; the ancestors of the Nguni people, migrated from West of the geographic Centre of Africa, towards modern-day South Africa 7000 years ago (5000 BC). Nguni people (zulus) had migrated within South Africa to KwaZulu-Natal by the 1st Century AD, and were also present in the Transvaal (province) region at the same time
No, the Zulu nation began moving into Southern Africa historically in recent times. They are Bantu and came from Eastern and Central Africa. Their encroachment on native lands in South Africa wasn't with trinkets or Indian reservations but total extermination. This period is called the Great Bantu Migration.
no, the zulu are part of the Nguni ppl, whom have been in southern africa for over 1,000 years. the zulu nation only arose in 1709 when a boy called Zulu (not shaka zulu) was born. your afrocentric version of history is an afrikkker fallacy since the Nguni and Khoi were friendly trading partners and the Nguni did not encroach upon native Khoi land until the white settlers arrived. this is when the idea of the zulu nation was formed and why they concentrated on military warfare since the continent needed a big army to defeat the white slavers in the south who brought with them guns.
Yes and no, what did the Romans ever do for us? My point is every country in its' time was both coloniser and colonised, it is not something unique to Western society. Perhaps the biggest difference is that those countries largely gave up their colonies voluntarily.
When the Dutch entered the Natal it was claimed by Zulus. The original inhabitants had been driven out or were killed by Zulus. Most slavery was carried out by blacks against blacks, or Arab slave traders. Slavery was banned in England early 1800's and then the British went after the Arab and American slave traders.
My brother worked in South Africa for a number of years spanning Apartheid/Liberation. One thing he said about the old regime was no system had as detailed method of stratifying people like the Apartheid system. Reading this thread reminds me of what he said. Who is what from where and why and for how long. Maybe one day everybody will realise we're all individuals subject to the accident of birth, and it is the duty of each individual to work out right from wrong and live by that. You can't (in my opinion) say because they or he or she did something terrible, so that justifies me or others doing it too. What about pride in the whole world being equally 'best' I have no sense of patriotism and regard my nationality as down to an accident of birth. There is something that troubles me when people validate themselves by riding on the coat tails and achievements of others when they would be better served by trying to do good or the right thing as individuals. I see extreme nationalism as a doorway into racial hatred.
Regards "Extreme nationalism" Extreme of anything is bad - including hate of your own country. Nations with proud and patriotic people achieve great things - nations that hate themselves become the servants of other nations.
The definition of what is even a nation is open to debate. It is an ever shifting concept and for every benefit there might be in defining that concept there seems to be a downside too. Personally I regard pride and patriotism with extreme suspicion, especially if it is expected or demanded of me by others.
really, where did you read that, stormfront? the original inhabitants WERE the zulu. most slavery was carried out by europeans to feed the trans atlantic so called trade. many Nguni would be transported to brazil, there is evidence for this, as there is evidence for afrikkkaner slavery in the cape. you have no evidence for any of your claims, its racist mythology perpetuated by racist whites in africa so it doesnt surprise me that you as a white person would take the afrikkkaners view of things. go look up the Delagoa slave so called trade, led by the portuguese.
all you are doing is exactly what other white folks do when discussing the west african slave so called trade. they all blame the africans and never blame themselves, typical revisionist liberals.
The Zulu destruction of the Natal is well documented. The Dutch and British should have initiated war crimes against the Zulus, and sent them packing to where they came from. Ever see that movie about the man eating lions of Tsavo? There's an interesting tidbit there that would confuse many woke people. The British build a railway through Kenya to FIGHT SLAVERY. Yes, Arabs forced hundreds of thousands of Africans through that region, and the sick of lame were abandoned as lion fodder. Britain stopped all that.
Yes, we should believe in humanity as a whole but there's nothing wrong with loving your country, just don't use it to denigrate others.
I don't think that's a 'liberal' thing? Point is 'blame whitey' types like yourself can't accept that the Western empires didn't do anything that every other culture also did.
That is what happens sadly. Very often politicians especially say, look how wonderful we are compared to there which is a ****hole.
maybe its well documented on stormfront but do you have any evidence aside from afrikkkaner mythology? you do realize afrikkkaners instituted 40 years of apartheid right? which would make their "documents" entirely racist and as a result highly suspicious. by modern consensus, the zulu chapter had been overly exaggerated for political reasons in order to support an apartheid regime.
I don't even know what Stormfront is. The whites instituted Apartheid, yes - the Zulus just chased out or killed anyone not a Zulu. I see South Africa soon going the way of Zimbabwe.
