←back to thread

116 points mooreds | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.326s | source
Show context
yardie ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
1. redochre ◴[] No.45685924[source]
If by native you mean the first people to enter an area, then the only natives are the Bushmen (San).

The Khoikhoi and the Bantu entered South Africa about 2000 years ago, between 1 and 300 AD.

Europeans arrived to settle in the 1600s, bringing with them many people from Asia, Madagascar and the rest of Africa.

The settlement of South Africa by these different groups did not happen within a 200 year window.