Black man’s lies. Truth about the history of land ownership in Southern Africa and the Bantu Empire

The recent uproar in South Africa over the claims by ANC president Jacob Zuma that the 1913 Land Act dispossessed blacks is a blatant lie, and forms part of four core lies about South African history, a New Observer correspondent Yochanan has written.
Submitted in the comment section of this newspaper, Yochanan’s remarks are so pertinent that they deserve greater publicity:

LIE NUMBER ONE: There is a common belief in South Africa that the Natives Land Act of 1913 shoved blacks on reserves (‘7 percent of the land’) and ‘prohibited them from buying land in white areas’. That ‘whites forcibly removed blacks to these reserves and that these reserves were on the worst land in the country with no mineral riches and that whites kept all the best land and minerals for themselves’.

Now if I was a black man, I would probably also want to believe that myth, because it would ensure me eternal victimhood status and compensation for generations to come.

Unfortunately, it is a blatant lie and can be attributed to the lack of reading ability or legal comprehension of the journalists and historians of our time.


Black tribal areas, secured, not defined, by the 1913 Land Act.

THE TRUTH: First of all the biggest Platinum reserves in the world run through the former Black homeland of Bophuthatswana (North West province).

The former Nationalist government had no problem allocating this area to the Tswana tribes for self-rule—although they already had a massive country called Botswana given to them by the British. It was originally part of South Africa, called Bechuanaland.

Blacks further got another two massive countries from the British called Lesotho and Swaziland. There goes their 7 percent.

LIE NUMBER TWO: ‘Black homelands were on the worst land in South Africa’.

THE TRUTH: When one compares the rainfall map of South Africa and anybody with elementary knowledge of South Africa will tell you that the largest part of South Africa is called the Karoo. It is a semi desert comparable to Arizona or Nevada in the USA.


Blacks never even entered this area let alone settled it. Whites made it blossom and created successful sheep farms producing meat of world quality.

Black “settlements” are found on the north and east coast of South Africa. The East Coast has a sub-tropical climate and the north a prairie-like climate with summer rainfall and thunderstorms. An exception to this is the Western Cape with a Mediterranean climate and winter rainfall.

The northern and eastern part of South Africa with its beautiful green grasslands and fertile soil is where the blacks eventually coalesced and this is the land they chose for themselves. Their eventual homelands were found on the land they inhabited out of their own free will.

The Afrikaners even have a song praising the greenness of Natal, called “Groen is die land van Natal” (Green is the land of Natal). It was perfect grazing area for the cattle herding blacks.

LIE NUMBER THREE: ‘Blacks are indigenous to South Africa and first settled it’.

THE TRUTH: Today Blacks in South Africa often tell Afrikaners and other minorities such as the Coloureds, Indians, Chinese or Jews to adapt to their misrule and corruption or “Go Home”…implying that we, who have been born here, who hold legal citizenship through successive birthrights; should emigrate to Europe, Malaysia, India or Israel. That the only ones who have a legal claim to South Africa, all of it, are the blacks. Blacks believe that they are ‘indigenous to South Africa’—but they are not: it was proven by DNA research. We are ALL settlers in South Africa.

All South Africans are settlers, regardless of their skin colour, and their DNA carries the proof. So says Dr Wilmot James, head of the African Genome Project, a distinguished academic, sociologist and, more recently, honorary professor of human genetics at the University of Cape Town.


Where is the archaeological proof that blacks ‘settled’ South Africa?

Apart from a few scattered archaeological remains found of black culture in the far northern Transvaal prior to 1652, it is generally agreed that blacks and whites were contemporary settlers of South Africa.

I use the term “Settler” loosely, because blacks never ‘settled’ South Africa; their presence was nomadic. Blacks were itinerants who travelled from place to place with no fixed home.

Whole capital “cities” of grass huts could be moved if grazing was exhausted. They had no demarcated areas, no fences, no borders, no maps, no title deeds to proof ownership of any land apart from a verbal claim and mutual understanding that their temporary presence in a certain area in a certain period of time constituted “ownership” of the land.

They left behind no foundations of buildings, no statues, no roads, no rock paintings, not a single proof of “settlement” of the land prior to the whites settling South Africa.

The only rock paintings were made by the Bushmen and the Hottentots (Khoi-Khoi and San) in the caves they temporarily occupied. Blacks were pastoral-nomads and the Bushmen/Hottentots were hunter-gatherer-nomads.

Whites, on the other hand, built cities, railroads, dams and a first world country comparable to the best in Europe and the new world…their legacy speaks of a people who intended to live there for a thousand years, if not eternity.

To claim that ‘the whole of Africa belongs to Blacks’ is absurd. It is like an Italian claiming the whole of Europe belongs to Italians, including Norway.

In fact, the pyramids of Egypt are proof of white settlement going back thousands of years—and also the Phoenicians settling Carthage and the Greeks settling Alexandria.

The Arabs settled North Africa soon after the Prophet Mohammed died and the whites settled Southern Africa from 1652 onwards. Today there are three Africas as Dr. Eschel Rhoodie calls it in his book “The Third Africa” (1968)… Arabic up north, Black in the centre and Whites at the south…

The white settlers of the Cape first came face to face with the Bantu around 1770 on the banks of the Great Fish River, 120 years after Van Riebeeck came to the Cape and 1000 km east of Cape Town.

LIE NUMBER FOUR: Whites created black reserves and homelands.

THE TRUTH: Blacks created the homelands themselves, thanks to Shaka Zulu. The common belief is that the ‘black tribes at the time were all living peacefully and in the spirit of ‘Ubuntu’ with each other in a virtual liberal paradise’.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Shaka-Zulu was a genocidal maniac who wiped out some two million black people in the Defeqane ( “great scattering”).


Above: The Difeqane, or “great scattering” of blacks occurred centuries after Europeans arrived in South Africa.

The Zulu tyrant Shaka, at the time was committing genocide against other tribes. The Swazis and the Ndebeles fled back north in the direction of central Africa where they migrated from.

The Sothos fled into the mountains of what is today, Lesotho. The rest of the smaller tribes huddled together trying to find strength in coalescing.

That is the history of black South Africans that blacks prefer to ignore… that blacks drove other blacks off their land, not whites.

It is into this maelstrom of black chaos that the Boers trekked in 1838. As far as they went they found large open sections of country uninhabited by anyone.

Black tribes fleeing Shaka’s carnage grouped themselves into areas finding protection in concentrated numbers.

This is how Sir Theophilus Shepstone later found the remnants of black refugees huddled together on self-created reserves. He just demarcated it in order to protect them from each other.

The creators of the Bantustans were not the Boers or the whites, it was a black man called Shaka.

Again, if you enjoyed this story and appreciate TRUTH, please sign up for our FREE monthly newsletter. 900,000 visits this past 6 months has to tell you something!


Where do the Bantu’s come from?


The southward Bantu occupation of sub-Saharan Africa (south of the Sahara), started some 2,000 years ago, with the introduction of crop farming and iron age technology from Nubia which made weaponry, conquest and supremacy possible.

The new crop farming from Egypt increased the population and necessitated an enlargement of territory, which led to the expansion of Bantu African black tribes from the Great Lakes in central Africa, to the colonisation to the south of Africa. This was one of the largest human conquests in history!

A linguistically related group of about 60 million people originating in West and Equatorial Africa, gradually expanded their Empire down the continent into Southern Africa, killing all tribes in its path!

Why were there no written records or major buildings or any large established settlements / Cultures?

Could it be that the entire sub-continent was a war zone and has been left depleted and destroyed?

How many cultures, nations, peoples, and populations were destroyed in this Genocidal Conquest?

What happened to the Hadzu, Pygmy, Khoi Khoi and many other indigenous populations BEFORE whites arrived?

And lastly, based on the above history, the following map put together by the initiative suggests a possible equitable settlement:

Further international commentary by EKP founder & director, Giacomo Vallone

I met with my liberal sister over the Christmas holiday and was appalled by her lack of knowledge, and ignorance when it came to South African history. Seems she’d  been schooled by the international media well.
Because “blacks were in South Africa first, and screwed out of their land by white devils”- which is abject rubbish as the following article will demonstrate, it’s apparently justifiable for them to essentially kill off the non-black population.
It doesn’t matter that British and Afrikaner settlers built the nation, or that most of victims of black atrocity are themselves black/have some black ancestry….
Nor does it matter that non-Western European migrants are moving into our Western lands on a regular basis where they live freely and safely.
By my sister’s flawed reasoning we should have the right to butcher them once they  wear out their welcome as black Africans are murdering en masse, the descendants of the European and Asian settler populations of the former British colonies. From SA to Fiji – it’s open season on Whites and Indians; the world does nothing and the Marxist media rubs its hands together.
Making the conversation more comical is the fact my sister, the hypocrite, lives in the United States of America!
Last time I checked the US was created as a British settler colony where the natives were displaced so whites could enrich themselves. Wonder if she’d be cool with the US’s native population rising up and  chopping her and her family up while they sun themselves on a Laguna Niguel beach-as so often happens in SA.
Let it be known – blacks ONLY moved into southern Africa in huge numbers once the European settlers and their Asian indentured labourers developed it. As stated-the precise same thing is happening in Europe now.

And before you claim I am being raysist; I give full credit to the Asian people that helped build SA as well as the Asian women that intermarried with the Afrikaner and British settlers when women were slim pickings.

In fact I feel a great deal more sympathy for white South Africans than I do white Americans, due to the manner in which blacks entered both of these territories.

British-governed South Africa, and the Afrikaner nationalist governments that followed, brought blacks in as workers, whereas the Americans imported Irish and Sub-Saharan Africans into the US against their will as slaves. 

Sort of like the dog you found on the street and brought into your home biting you, versus a dog you’ve kidnapped, raped and beaten doing so….

I’m not excusing black on white crime in the US however from where I’m standing, holier than thou Americans need a bit of a history lesson on SA before they talk smack.
Now, does that at all sound even remotely racist?
The story above is a history lesson so few of us have had….
Keep fighting, G Vallone, EKP

Enjoyed this post? Share it!

  • Tyrone Claassens

    Ah, I remember these borders. We even made sure they had a tourism attraction, that brought our money to the areas. All our Casino’s were in these Home lands. Great read, and great lesson.

    • Saffa Coza

      Not far removed from what the Americans did to the Native Americans who have done very well out of the casino’s on their traditional lands.
      Suffice to say the South African blacks looked a gift horse in the mouth through eyes that were bigger than their stomachs and now they have no idea where their pent up anger is coming from…

  • Esme Schwan

    It took whites 100 years to build South Africa and 20 years for the present government to break it down to its present state

  • Saffa Coza

    Firstly King Tut himself had European DNA: “R1bib”.
    Either you don’t know SA history or you have been brainwashed with the ANC communist version. The Boer tribe is older than the Zulu or Xhosa tribe… but I guess if you approve of democratic supremacy through mass breeding… the whole conversation is pointless, as a clan from Nigeria, no bigger than the current Afrikaners has ended up populating the ENTIRE African sub continent and then some in Europe and America…. and you want to point a finger at whites for Supremacy and Colonisation?
    Breed breed breed, you can conquer a planet that way…. guess that explains white bantu’s – take the blue pill and squeal on those that take the red…
    That Bondstaat map does say it is a discussion document but the Boers did have two Internationally recognised Republics… more than even the Catalans in Spain had!..

    • Stu

      Firstly, King Tutankhamun did not build the pyramids. He ruled ca. 1332–1323 BC, at least two millenia BEFORE the reported construction of their building. Furthermore, I urge you to read Robert Bauval’s ‘Black Genesis’ on the prehistoric origins of ancient Egypt, where he presents proof that an advanced black African civilization inhabited the Sahara long before Pharaonic Egypt. By my posting two statements, you also appear to make untold assumptions of my knowledge (or lack thereof) on South African history. This is far from the truth: I had the apartheid governments version rammed down my throat in school, so I made every effort to understand the more expansive and truer version we all enjoy today. You call the boers a ‘tribe’ but they were no more than European colonisers (formerly Dutch), like the British only 150 years later, even if they formed a ‘republiek’. Saffa Coza your rambling from thenceforth is lost to me. Please understand I agree with most of the writers points here and support the article in general, just not on the two points I raised. Bondstaat’s diagram is significant because it reveals that there are still ‘Afrikaners’ out there who believe that they are owed more than English-speaking South Africans. This ‘Ons was hier eerste, rooinekke laaste’ outlook on things is as short-sighted, foolish and moth-eaten, as for that which the writer’s piece is aimed at. Never before has it been more important in the history of South Africa for Afrikaaners and Engelsmanne to stand side by side and vote out the rot of it’s current leadership, instead of fantasising about a backward-looking discussion document…

      • Saffa Coza

        So, you put Zulu and Xhosa, who were still Nguni and Bantu settlers and colonisers North of the Limpopo when the Boers started leaving the Cape a century earlier to get away from British imperialism, supremacy and “superiority”, on a pedestal, yet the Boer Afrikaners who helped build the country, you despise? – It seems nothing has changed in 300 years and your bantu worship is therefore quite predictable and your British superiority is laughable. You go make your bed with the black government and assist in the genocide of 11 nations… If my desire for Independence and Self Determination makes you so nervous that it has for centuries caused you to persecute us and forcefully take everyone of our 17 Boer Republics, one would wonder why?. Maybe YOU should go look at your roots and question whether your ancestors are actually English or an old evil money power using UK as a hideout?

        • Stu

          I don’t despise any tribe or nation of people and I certainly don’t worship any either, Saffa Coza. I’m well aware of the migrations, forced or otherwise, of the historic peoples in South Africa i.e. Groot Trek, Difeqane etc. I’m not quite sure how you make these wild assumptions about me because that, is actually laughable. It seems to me you ‘despise’ the English colonisers though? Bare in mind the British Imperialists you appear to loathe also helped built the country of South Africa as we now know it. If you haven’t woken up to the fact that you’re living (if you are South African resident) in an African country, run by black Africans, and that it always will be, you’re setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment. I’m not ‘nervous’ about your aspirations for a independence or Boer Republiek or whatever, just perplexed. Your generalisation that ‘I’ for centuries ‘persecuted you and forcefully took your Boer republics away’ reminds me of the same whine Jacob Zuma uses against whites at ANC rallies. I’m sorry to say but ‘I’ had no part in any of it. Your argument of ancestry is as short-sighted as the one Zuma, Mugabe and Malema before them use in public rhetoric to fool the uneducated masses. But I am not fooled. Just remember, as Dr Wilmot James states and who is quoted in this article “We are ALL settlers in South Africa.” I refuse to continue this little keyboard clay-lat we’ve had today because like many other debates I’ve had with others who are stuck in the past, there cannot possibly be any worthwhile middle-ground of acceptance and closure here. Peace out.

          • Saffa Coza

            I am well aware of the aggressive contribution Britain made… (but only your darling darkies are allowed to claim a grudge and seek compensation wherever and whenever they can?) You are the one being assumptive by assuming South Africa always was and always will be some concrete monolithic communist power base.
            But as you say let’s leave it there, although I am always bemused at so called peaceful reasonable people like you who think it ok to force people together and chastises those that want to be separate? Forced integration is worse than forced separation although both are wrong.
            Why do you have a problem with someone seceding?