Talk:Bantu peoples

message: The language used in the article is loaded with presumptions and assertions which sound like standard, agenda driven propaganda you would get in apartheid South Africa in the 1950s. For instance, the constant conflation of language with people. The assertion that we just don't know who founded the Great Zimbabwe. The statement that the San or Khoekhoe were the original population of 'sub-Saharan Africa' - in South Africa, maybe, however not in the DRC or West Africa. MrSativa (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa-Centrism 

message: Recently the following paragraph was added to the article:
:They couldn't spread southwards because their cattle and plants were not adapted to the Mediterranean climate. It was Huguenots who brought the Mediterranean techniques to South Africa.
I think this comment needs some references. I'm not an agriculture expert, so I don't know much about it.  — mark ✎ 09:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory, something similar appears in Guns, Germs and Steel. --Error 04:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition 

message: I'm a loser and I recall learning about the Bantu in relation to their significance as a society with relatively egalitarian status between men and women prior to their settling.  They represented a social phenomenon because the change was observable as the last remaining nomadic groups settled down in . . . the 1970s?  This was for a class I took last year, so I will try to dig up some materials.  Is this familiar with any of you?  I'd be interested to see what you think/its relevance to this article.   This is my first attempted contribution to wikipedia so if you have any suggestions r.e. either material -or- conduct please tell.  Thanks!
:Welcome, Heymay! It doesn't ring a bell, but that doesn't say much as I didn't take such a class nor read anything solid on the Bantu peoples (I'm more at home in their languages at present). However, especially the 1970 date makes me curious — I don't know of any nomadic Bantu groups in recent years. By all means dig up some materials, I've been thinking for a while that this article is in need of expansion! — mark ✎ 00:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Nomadic Bantu 

message: I propose this article be merged with Bantu languages article. I think (as the current article says) that using this linguistic term to denote 'peoples' or 'races' is pretty offensive nowadays.
Thoughts? Guinnog 20:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's best to keep them separate. Referring to people as Bantu is only offensive in South Africa, as far as I know; elsewhere it seems to be okay. Geschiere uses it frequently in his Modernity of Witchcraft, and Turnbull doesn't shy from it in The Forest People. Even if you find the term offensive, it has a long history of usage as a term for peoples, so it's worthwhile to keep the article separate to discuss the historical aspects, if nothing else. — Amcaja 20:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that's the point. I don't think the term is offensive to Bantu speakers outside of South Africa. In Cameroon, people weren't offended if I asked them if they were Bantu. Is "yid" ever used in an academic context? "Bantu" is. — Amcaja 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You're ignoring the point that outside of South Africa it's not offensive. I have no problem with the article stating point blank "Using this term to label people is offensive in South Africa". But using "Bantu" to refer to people is commonly done by Bantu-speakers themselves. — Amcaja 02:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not ignoring this 'fact' but disputing it. It is offensive to *anyone* who knows that 'races' (which is what this article presently is about) are an outmoded unscientific 19th century term. See the article on Caucasian as another example. The use of Bantu as a racial term is exactly equivalent to the use of Aryan. Some black Americans refer to themselves as nigger too, I wouldn't justify the use of this word in an encyclopedia. It would be interesting to hear from any 'Bantu' reading this whether they consider this term preferable or not! Guinnog 07:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is refuting that the term is percieved by some as pejorative. I am a Bantu, and in Uganda where I am from, the term does not carry any negative connotations. Bantu, abantu, ngabantu and other variants means people in many bantu languages. --Ezeu 08:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a very sensible solution. — Amcaja 12:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've revised the opening para to reflect that the use of this term to denote a race is offensive in all Southern Africa, not just South Africa. In my experience, people in Botswana and Zimbabwe would be just as offended to be called Bantu. I still have reservations about labelling people with old-fashioned racial terms like this: it is uncomfortably close to Aryan or Caucasian with all the trouble these terms have caused. However, this is a compromise position I can live with - for now! Guinnog 14:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just it; it's not racial, it's linguistic. The article is basically saying "These people speak similar languages and have some similarities of culture." But I think the current wording is a reasonable compromise. — Amcaja 15:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening paragraph is written in a non-objective non-encyclopedic manner.  I'm assuming this stems from this current discussion?  Should this be rewritten so that it is more objective but with reference made to Bantu as an offensive term in the context of South Africa?  Bigheadjer 02:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ethiopians have intermarried with Descendants of Shem for a long time and yes what we see now is a cross breed of Black and Semites. We can not say Nimrod was not Black because he was born of the same seed as Shem, when even science sees this as possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.84.8 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: On the article it is said:
Strictly speaking, the term "Bantu" is a contraction of two Nguni words - "Ba" ("people") and "ntu" (who speak").
How true is this?
As far as I know "ba" is just a prefix for the plural human nominal class, and as so it means "people" as much as the sufix "a" in Catalan, Italian or Spanish means "female". It is, not at all. Also, "ntu" would not mean "who speak" but the root for "human" or "people" or "person"...
--83.44.190.12 22:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of the word 

message: This article is written in the past tense, as if Bantu people are not still living! I'm sure a lot of the statements made about ancient Bantu peoples that are not true today. I came to this article looking for information on Somali Bantus. Not only is there no mention of them here, the article implies that there are no living Bantu peoples. Lagringa 21:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right. Although the very first paragraph hints at the current existence of some 400 Bantu ethnic groups, the rest of the article doesn't discuss this at all. The real problem is that the rest of the article is about the term Bantu in a South African context. I have suggested before (and do so again now) that we split off the Bantu (South Africa) part (which currently makes up for 90% of the article content) and start writing an article here on Bantu in general, as used outside South Africa. (On a sidenote: what we have here is an instance of systemic bias: because South Africans are by far the most internet-savy on the African continent, our coverage of Africa in certain cases is biased towards South Africa.) — mark ✎ 19:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bantus aren't dead!

message: I have split the article and created Bantu peoples of South Africa, and also posted a note to Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board requesting expansion of this article. --Ezeu 14:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that, Ezeu. — mark ✎ 19:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed the  tag, which doesn't apply anymore. — mark ✎ 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article per previous discussions 

message: The following was recently added to the article. I've pulled it out mainly because it sounds like a non-notable 'fringe' theory, so WP:NPOV#Undue weight applies here. Besides, it is not clear where the source is to be found, and what claims to reliability it, or its author, has.
:It is quite possible that the popularity of the Bantu languages is due at least in part to the teachings of the sage Bentu, an apprentice of Mohit, who is believed to have had an indo-afro linguistic influence on the earlier South African tongues.[1]
:1. Mbembe, Kuinto. "Time As a Metaphor of History: Early India and the African Connection". pp 45-49.
First, I couldn't locate that author and that article. Second, it is unclear what the teachings of the apprentice of Mohit could possibly have to do with the popularity of the Bantu languages. Third, it is equally unclear what the relation is between the spread of the Bantu languages and some 'indo-afro linguistic influence' (whatever that may be) on other (namely earlier) South African languages. In sum, it seems to me that the allusions made in this piece of text are too vague, and the source too unnotable, to include it in an encyclopedic article about the Bantu people or their languages. — mark ✎ 21:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition 

message: Shouldn't there be something about the relationship between Bantu and the majority of African Americans. Its my understanding that most of not all of the slaves were from Bantu areas. This has led to a lot of confusion where African Americans think they are close blood brothers with like Ethiopians and Egyptians, which I'm pretty sure is not the case. Some people can't see past skin color though, especially in the South. Anyway I'm not an expert, but if someone knows some good sources I would welcome the appendum. Novaterata 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cameroon is roughly the dividing line between Bantu-speaking areas and non-Bantu speaking areas in West Africa. According to estimates by Hugh Thomas in his book The Slave Trade, 8,000,000 Africans were shipped out of ports northwest of there. 5,000,000 were sent from ports in Cameroon and parts south. Now, it's possible, even likely, that Bantu-speaking people taken from Cameroon could have been shipped out of ports to the north, such as Calabar; the opposite is also possible. But it would seem from Thomas's data that the majority of Africans taken to the New World were in fact non-Bantu speakers. This number probably fluctuates from area to area; slaves taken from Angola usually ended up in South America, for example. I am not an expert, however; this is just my reading of Thomas's data. — Amcaja 01:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  African Americans 

message: Did I perhaps revert a correct edit, or is it a bug in the Wiki software? Feel free to correct my "correction" if I was in error... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PGAN002's edit 

message: Does this fairy tale really have any place in this article?:
"Although the idea of a large-scale physical migration is currently outdated in the academic world here are a few of those theories: The bantu Originated between the nothern parts of africa and middle east . They descend from Ham. Most bantu tribes lived around nothern Ethiopia and Ruled the antient Egypt before they were conqured after the time of Shishark and forced to migrate downwards through Kenya and Uganda, this war lead to most parts of north africa becoming deserts. Before that South of the Sahara was Swampy and unInhabitable.This can be attested to by The bantu legends similar to biblical stories e.g the story of moses was long told in bantu folk tales before the advent of christianity."
I could see it being put in a separate and low-on-the-page section about traditional European colonial attitudes concerning Bantu peoples, but where it is now, in a section entitled "Bantu Expansion", it seems slapped in haphazardly. 64.147.67.22 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; thanks for posting about it here. I seems to have slipped in unnoticed a while ago. I've removed it. - Amcaja (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not be as riduculous as you make it if you research the history of Bantu well with scientific and biblical aspects in mind, this all adds up to one, History.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkaranikataka (talk • contribs) 05:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find "science" + Bible adds up to Bullshit, actually. --86.137.152.133 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that we are dealing with here is humans trying to prove history. if the suggestion "adds up to bullshit" can one claim the theories advanced here are the absolute truth, or is it people trying to make that "bullshit" to make sence? whatever is written is by human whocan error. wishing away suggestions is like running away from a path that can maybe lead to the truth.212.49.92.208 (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Biblical Migration Theories

message: (part of the "Great Bantu massacre of 2007") included, but were not limited to:
#Reverting an ill-advised edit by a green nøøb
#Clarifying that the languages are indeed related (previously, it sounded like the basic thesis that had been disproved was that of a single language family)
#Clarified the list of uses of abantu and related words at the bottom
#Some more linguistically enclined stuff
#Stressed what had already been agreed to here -- that it is immoral and simply not-nice to use "Bantu" as an ethnic label today
#Put a stupid sarcastic remark at the beginning.
I don't think that anyone could possibly have a problem with EVERY ONE of the above points, so could y'all please simply edit the stuff you don't like instead reverting everything indiscriminantly? Please?
Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 16:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really just had a problem with 'the not distant enough past'. In the future, please try not to do something like that, even if you feel strongly inclined to write that way, as it goes against the spirit of WP:NPOV. (: Octane [improve me]  07.10.07 1723 (UTC)
Okay, excellent.
Regarding the number 400. I've learnt to take all claims giving a number for the number of languages/cultures when dealing with Africa with a large dose of salt. The problem lies with the largely divergent figures different authors may give. For example, South Africa has 11 official languages, but this does NOT mean that there are 11 languages spoken here or that there are 11 distinct ethnic groups as many people have claimed (eg isiXhosa alone is spoken by half a dozen ethnic groups, and not all amaNdebele speak the same language).
Additionally there was and seems to still be a widely held belief that there are basically hundreds of millions of people in Africa and the Americas who don't speak any languages at all (they all speak "dialects"; I've even seen on Wikipedia the claim that basically all sub-Saharan Africans speak dialects of "Bantu").
So, I hope you understand that, whenever I see numbers, even in a national context, I simply do not believe them.
The same is true, to a much lesser extent, when dates are quoted for the "Bantu expansion." The data in this article seems okay but I've seen numbers ranging anywhere from 2000bce (often by Afrocentrists, within the context of the Nok civilisation) to 1500ce (by rightwing South Africans) for the start of the migrations. Ultimately, what's needed are contemporary sources from impartial authors -- even publications from 30 years ago tend to be hopelessly outdated when dealing with Africa.
Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edits. 

message: I deleted the Gadalla quotes. The book is fringe, and from the little I've skimmed over, perhaps racist. What cued me in was the claim that the word 'bantu' is cognate with Egyptian 'nti'; then the various quotes turned out to be essentially worthless even where they weren't wrong. — kwami (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gadalla deleted 

message: I remove the image of the Congolese woman since there is no indication she's actually Kongo, as the legend was assuming "A Kongo woman in the Republic of Congo", the original Flickr image  only has the info "Congolese" nothing else. She could be of any Congolese ethnic group or even anything, just happening to be in the Congo. Since we don't know --Moyogo/ (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Congolese lady.jpg A Kongo woman in the Republic of Congo 

message: "Remaining ethno-cultural diversity following the Bantu migration is also arguably the trigger for much of the violence in the Great Lakes region, with pastoralist and historically Afro-Asiatic communities such as the Tutsi, Banyankole,and Hima (who only later adopted Bantu languages) in historical conflict over the struggle for political representation and land with the later Bantu migrants in the region. [30] [31] [32] [33]"
The above section is in dispute, and much back and forth has occurred in the talk page above. Here are the different parts of the section, please reference the previous discussion on "Tutsi Genetic Affiliations"
Let us discuss each in turn so we are clear what the dispute is and what references for each of our points is needed. Perhaps the issue is that the references are all at the end and not between each section. I am willing to parse out each section with references. Please let us work together to resolve this issue, please not each section in turn so we can be precise, thank you. Tollsnanak900 (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the headers per WP:TALKNEW. They are supposed to be neutral. Also, per that policy, posts should be short and concise and in one place so that others may respond. I've already explained several times now above with quotes and links why the wiki statement on the Tutsi-Hima is not supported. The most that can be said based on them is something along the lines of "although Bantu speakers, the Tutsi-Hima hold that they originally spoke an Afro-Asiatic language, which they later abandoned after intermarrying with Bantu groups[...] genetic studies confirming or refuting this tradition are inconclusive". It can't be asserted that the Tutsi-Hima are themselves Afro-Asiatic peoples, only later adopted a Bantu language, etc. Middayexpress (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Remaining ethno-cultural diversity following the Bantu migration is also arguably the trigger" (Spin Out) - Request for Consensus -Please Do Not Make Changes to This Section of Article Until Consensus Met

message: I guess consensus has been met as another user has changed it from Afro-Asiatic to Nilo-Saharan in the article. I have added "most probably" to those changes to note discussion above. Further changes to this issue in the section should engage the discussion here as consensus on this issue has now been presumably met. Andajara120000 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus Met Regarding Tutsi/Hima/Banyankole

message: Yes it is possible that they would have doubled in 10 years. STOP DOING ORIGINAL RESEARCH.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you are commenting on this talk page is not helping anyone listen to you. You are all over the place. Stop worrying about reverts and just calm down and make sense in a controlled fashion. You are doing your own maths, that is OR. Who are you accusing of doing OR? Does any of those ref say The Bantu population is 400 million? Is there a source that sums it up? Then use that one. The Unesco source does not say this. --Inayity (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed User:Inayity. It's hard to even respond without getting that "edit conflict" wiki message because constant simultaneous posting here. The discussion needs to slow down and focus on specifics. Middayexpress (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bantu Population Figures (Spinned Out) 

message: Is this still in question or is it resolved per the earlier discussion regarding the first line on the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bantu Relative Homogeneity (Spinned Out) 

message: No contradicting papers have been given to the Salas, Landscape of African MtDNA article. Can we reach consensus on this issue as no countervailing arguments have been given and no contradicting DNA papers have been presented? Tollsnanak900 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Consensus on Bantu Relative Homogeneity-Please Do Not Make Changes to This Section of the Article Until Consensus Met

message: Roland Oliver, et al. "Africa South of the Equator," in Africa Since 1800. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 18-34.
discussing general unity of bantu-speaking areas in history and some additional kingdoms:
p. 21 Kongo Kingdom in Angola
p. 23 Lunda and Mwata Kazembe in DRC
p. 24-25 Eastern- Buganda, Karagwe, Rwanda, Burundi Kabaka Mutesa of Buganda
p. 25- Great Zimbabwe, Mwene Mutapa, Rozvi (Naletale and Dhlo-Dhlo) Andajara120000 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good reference for points for the history to add 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjohnjames/Archive. Note that although Andajara120000 is clear about being Tollsnanak900 the issue is that both accounts are socks of User:Johnjohnjames, just two of many socks who have been active on this article and other articles relating to East Africa. I have noted the misuse of references dealing with genetics, ranging from unreliable sources to using sources to make an argument violating WP:NOR and WP:SYN - sources must specifically discuss the subject of the article (see WP:VRS), but this editor puts together sources to make an argument the way you would do in an essay. I've struck through some of their edits, feel free to strike through or remove the rest. I've wasted too much time in the last 2 weeks on this idiot. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: He was prolific I could not keep up. and sometimes people can out blast you because they seem to have so many ref. But a few moves did raise the alarm bells. But we still need to keep any good edits where applicable. I have just 1/2 reviewed some of the content and see source abuse. Sometimes the source says NOTHING he claims it is saying. But some of the content I think can be cleaned and re-added --Inayity (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Some cleaning up was already done over the last few days; I think that's a good starting point. Middayexpress (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock puppet edits 

message: As tradition in most Wikipedia articles about ethnic groups, I added an image array of notable Bantu individuals at the top of the infobox. This, I think, is better than the previous image of a map. Additional images of notable Bantus, from various backgrounds, would be greatly appreciated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.50.34.213 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bantu is not an ethnic group. It is a category of languages. We could talk of Bantu-speaking ethnic groups, and maybe stretch the point and call it a category of ethnic groups. But none of the individuals pictured is a Bantu person. Chris Lowe (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable People in Infobox 

message: :Category: has been nominated for . You are encouraged to join the discussion  on the Categories for discussion page. HelenOnline 10:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfD nomination of [[:Category:{{ucfirst:Bantu people}}]] 

message: Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bantu peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325021249/http://www.txstate.edu/anthropology/cas/journal_articles/herder.pdf to http://www.txstate.edu/anthropology/cas/journal_articles/herder.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121014421/http://www.rogerblench.info/Archaeology%20data/Africa/Konigswinter%202007/Konigswinter%20paper.pdf to http://www.rogerblench.info/Archaeology%20data/Africa/Konigswinter%202007/Konigswinter%20paper.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also checked the sources 10 and 17 in the article and they are no longer available so they need to be updated. Sorry I didn't put the references here. Thanks! Jody5793 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Describe the way of the life of the Bantu speaking people 197.239.4.192 (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Why does the Somalia row in the chart say 0.5 million total population and 2.8 million Bantu population in 2015? The "Bantu percentage" of 13% also implies a population of about 20 million, not 0.5 million.
I'm going to replace it with more accurate info. 
I tried looking around for data on the percentage of Somalians that are Bantu but the only info I could get is that the population of non-Somalis, including Bantus, is less than 15%. 
Spiderduckpig (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somalia chart population info