top of page
  • Writer's picturerutendo matinyarare

The Theory Of Bantu Migration Was Created To Justify Colonialism

When ever you point out European looting and pillaging of Africa to most people. Those who are so called "intellectuals" and defenders of colonialism are quick to say Africans looted each before the white man arrived.

With this they reference the Mfecane and how Zulus attacked other African tribes, while conveniently I’m missing fundamental historical facts in advancing their argument.

According to the same colonial history, the Zulu kingdom only came into existence after a consolidation of a number of small Nguni clans in 1709. That is a whole 220yrs after the arrival of the Dutch and Portuguese on South African shores.

This consolidation of small Nguni clans and families into one militant warrior tribe in Southern Africa had never been necessary before the white man came and the questions most never ask is why.

Were Zulus war hungry looters of other African tribes or were they a defensive adaption to Europeans stealing and looting their land and people? And was their looting of other Africans thereafter them trying to regain what they had lost to the white man?

Or was it an adaptation and the beginning of western style corruption and blood thirsty culture in Southern Africa?

In defense, colonialists advance the argument that Zulus actually migrated from Central Africa to displace the Khoisan people from their land. According to this narrative looting was part of Zulu cultural expansion and this therefore justifies European conquest as a legitimate means of land acquisition.

Nonetheless, history tells us otherwise. It tells us that the Khoisan were a formidable fighting force at a time the Zulus were still defenseless, small clans and families being harassed, captured and enslaved by the Portuguese from Delagoa Bay [modern day Maputo].

Historic accounts speak of a battle in 1499 in which the Khoisan successful repelled Portuguese settlement in the Southern tip of Africa by killing De Almeida and 60 of his soldiers after they attempted to plant a padrao [a cross discovery] and rob the Khoisan of their cattle at modern day Shirley Point [Sao Brao].

This battle was the decisive reason why the Portuguese deciding not to settle on the southern tip of Africa. From here they moved further north east until they settled at Delagoa Bay where they heard of the renowned Mutapa gold traders. The Portuguese set up fort and began to befriend the local chiefs seeking to trade gold, ivory and copper from inland.

As part of their trade conditions they were told to stay in their coastal forts and commodities would be brought to them. Albeit, occasionally the Portuguese went down to the south east coast and made incursions into Nguni territory to capture ngunis as slaves for their ships and for sale along the east cost and India.

It was these incursions that continued between 1500 and 1700 why the Zulu clans consolidated and formed a militant tribe for protection against Portuguese and later on boer raids.

Moreover, if Nguni's were all from East central Africa, when did they arrive? Why were they all fragmented into small separate clans? Why weren't they united in the same group they left Central Africa with? Who led their migration?

Why is it we don't see Zulu Nguni cows anywhere else in Africa from where they migrated? It’s because Bantu migration is a theory and it’s not exactly an undisputed science.

Moreover, now that we hear that humanity might actually not have started in central Africa, but here in South Africa [cradle of mankind]. What does this do to the colonial theory of Bantu migration from east Africa and Nguni colonization of the Khoisan?

This is reasoning they will not teach you in history class.

5 views0 comments