←back to thread

South Africa's one million invisible children without birth certificates

(www.france24.com)
116 points mooreds | 5 comments | 14 Oct 25 01:13 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
yardie ◴[21 Oct 25 16:26 UTC] No.45657753[source]▶
While listening to Trevor Noah's podcast one of the topics they were discussing was South Africa. Apparently, the apartheid South African government never included Black South Africans in the census. That was how little regard they had for native South Africans they couldn't even be bothered to count how many fellow humans existed in their country. The new government was required to carry out a census in order to know how many MPs were going to be in parliament. And they were blown away by the count. Until then, it was just a guess.

So South Africans not having birth certificates or any birth records is the least surprising.

replies(2): >>45657820 #>>45657926 #
inshard ◴[21 Oct 25 16:40 UTC] No.45657926[source]▶
Native South African is a debatable word. You could argue that the Khoisan are the natives. But I doubt these are the affected populations that are the subject of this article. There were multiple migrations into South Africa, some from the south by the Europeans and some from the north by the Bantu. All around a 200-year primary window. Even today, the northern migration routes are still active.
replies(2): >>45658006 #>>45685924 #
yardie ◴[21 Oct 25 16:46 UTC] No.45658006[source]▶
> Native South African is a debatable word.

They've been there over 2000 years, I think we can consider them native at this point.

European colonialists and apartheid justifiers try to shoehorn the Bantu migration as being just slightly before Europeans arrived when fossil records prove it was thousands of years prior.

Have you looked at a map? What would stop the oldest humans, who have been there hundred thousand years, from moving from the central African plans to anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa?

replies(1): >>45668220 #
1. andsoitis ◴[22 Oct 25 12:44 UTC] No.45668220[source]▶
>> Native South African is a debatable word.

> They've been there over 2000 years, I think we can consider them native at this point.

> European colonialists and apartheid justifiers try to shoehorn the Bantu migration as being just slightly before Europeans arrived when fossil records prove it was thousands of years prior.

> What would stop the oldest humans, who have been there hundred thousand years, from moving from the central African plans to anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa?

The Khoisan have been in South Africa for 20,000 - 30,000 years.

While the Bantu-speaking groups brought advancements like agriculture, ironworking, and permanence settlements, they also displaced the original Khoisan peoples, pushing them from fertlie lands or hunting grounds. Raids or conflicts over cattle and territory also happened. Assimilation and intermarriage also occured, causing many Khoisan to lose their distinct langage and culture over time.

replies(1): >>45668457 #
2. yardie ◴[22 Oct 25 13:03 UTC] No.45668457[source]▶
The Bantu people have been in the southern African region longer than the Roman empire has existed in continental Europe. So, why aren't they not considered native? No one considers the Roman empire not native to Europe.
replies(1): >>45668557 #
3. andsoitis ◴[22 Oct 25 13:10 UTC] No.45668557[source]▶
> So, why aren't they not considered native?

I didn't say that explicitly, but you are right that I'm implying that it is customary to use "native people" to refer to the original occupants of a territory, not subsequent waves of humans.

For context:

a) Khoisan (20,000 - 30,000 years)

b) Bantu-speaking groups (1,500 - 2,000 years)

c) white South Africans (300 - 400 years)

I guess you could say that there is a "degree" of nativeness, where a > b > c, but I would question the motives for doing so.

> No one considers the Roman empire not native to Europe

That's drawing arbitrary lines to suit your argument. Nobody would claim that the Romans were native to Gaul, for example.

I'm trying to understand what is the reason behind your points, but am struggling to do so. The less generous interpretation of your angel is that you're trying to say that white South Africans or Indian South Africans or Chinese South Africans are less native than black South Africans or that black South Africans are more native than the Khoisan. I don't know that you are saying this, but your argument does seem to point in that direction and is divisive, FWIW.

replies(1): >>45672969 #
4. yardie ◴[22 Oct 25 18:10 UTC] No.45672969{3}[source]▶
I never brought up who is considered native. The intermediate poster brough that up.

>> Native South African is a debatable word.

There has been a recent right-wing movement in South Africa to politicize the Bantu migrations to minimize the impact of European colonialization and ultimately apartheid.

replies(1): >>45676127 #
5. andsoitis ◴[22 Oct 25 22:46 UTC] No.45676127{4}[source]▶
> There has been a recent right-wing movement in South Africa to politicize the Bantu migrations to minimize the impact of European colonialization and ultimately apartheid.

Has there? I was in South Africa twice earlier this year and didn’t see anything in the news or in public. Do you have a reference that illustrates what you have in mind?