However, for politically correct reasons, nobody states this firmly established fact: that blacks migrated thousands of miles and colonized southern Africa only in recent centuries. In fact, if you will study the history (as opposed to the rubbish which some African-Americans have written in their complete and unadulterated wishful-thinking-induced ignorance about Africa), you will find that Blacks only inhabited a portion of Africa until recently.
What you need to understand about blacks and whites in the past is that Black and White societies behaved very differently. White society (long before Colonialism - going back to Ancient Greece and earlier) had learned to settle down and build cities. Thus, in Europe (and also in Asia), you can trace the history of a people because they had enough technology and structure to build cities and to inhabit a place for centuries. But in Africa, Blacks were largely nomads. The only cities that existed in Africa prior to the arrival of whites were a handful in West Africa, Timbuktu being one of them. But in Africa south of the equator, one finds no cities.
Let it be said that: South of the equator, there are no cities that were inhabited by blacks which could’ve been considered cities in the normal sense of the word as you would understand them.
That's not to say the blacks didn't have "cities" composed of huts, which they did. The Zulus for example had their "capital city" and during the reign of Chaka, he actually decided to relocate his capital. Since the entire "city" was composed of nothing but huts made of wood and grass, it was pretty easy to abandon one site in its entirety and to move elsewhere.
Since blacks did not build stone or brick structures, and had no plumbing, water works or any other modern infrastructure (they did not even build roads or have wheeled vehicles), the relocation of a whole village was not an issue.
Blacks never were advanced enough to develop a "civilisation" in the way it is understood in Europe, Asia even the Americas under Indians.
Black tribes were nomadic due to their extreme backwardness, as we can observe on the Discovery channel’s shows about traditional Africans. Often their poor agricultural methods of slash and burn meant that even if they practiced agriculture, they could not remain in the same area because they wore out the soil. Blacks who practiced agriculture would move into an area, cut down the trees, set fire to the place and clear the land. Then they'd "farm" there for a few years before the soil was too poor to produce a decent crop. Then they'd relocate.
Blacks, prior to the arrival of the White man, did not occupy territory in the sense we do. They now want to pretend that they possessed real estate - and yes they did occupy some land - but they also vacated and abandoned it. Remember too, there weren't that many Blacks around. Their populace was a tiny fraction of their numbers today due to a population explosion brought on by Western medicine. So there was plenty of space in Africa, and blacks only used a small portion of it at any given time time.
According to modern historians, the Blacks who occupied southern Africa, migrated there from central Africa. They did not live here prior to that. Prior to that, there were bushmen (san people) and Hottentots (who were completely wiped out). The blacks actually murdered and chased the Bushmen down the length of southern Africa. The Bushmen are almost extinct now.
The local Bushmen befriended the Whites because the Bushmen hated the migrating Blacks. That remained so even during Apartheid, as Bushmen always had a good association with whites.
B. No Blacks Lived In Parts Of South Africa
There were portions of South Africa which Blacks had not even reached by the time whites arrived there.
It is an established fact that Whites in South Africa, first coming from the south first met Blacks (coming from the north) at the Great Fish River in the Cape.
There is therefore, a sizable portion of the Cape to which Whites have a claim. In fact, the meeting place between the Blacks and Whites is further north of the land demanded by the Boers as their homeland.
But now Blacks are trying to claim that the Hottentots and the Bushmen are also Black. But that's not correct. Not technically and not scientifically. Thus, if the land is to be “liberated” from the invaders, Blacks must leave along with Whites.
The Bushmen were here before the Blacks. The Blacks murdered the Bushmen and drove them thousands of miles down the length of Africa. All over southern Africa, where you no longer find Bushmen, you will find their paintings, pottery and other artifacts as proof that they lived there. When I lived on the farm in Ruwa (Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe), we had a beautiful painting of an elephant on the rocks - done by Bushmen. There were neither elephants nor Bushmen there when we lived there.
There was a cave with pottery on our farm where you could see where the Bushmen made their fires. Blacks lived in huts, but Bushmen did not. In more than one place on our farm, you could see where the Bushmen once lived and made fires which left marks on the rocks.
Thus, it’s not as simple as Black v. White. The Hottentots are now extinct and there are only a few thousand Bushmen left in all of southern Africa, while Blacks are a majority.
Then you get a place like Angola where the Portuguese arrived 500 years ago and lived on the coast. During the 500 years the Portuguese maintained their coastal settlements - the black tribes in the interior came and went. There was no single black tribe which remained continuously in Angola during that 500 year period!
So technically, if we remove Bushmen from the picture and just focus on Black versus White and who was where and when, then Whites have a greater claim to land.
Then you get the Transvaal which was inhabited by Blacks, but the Zulus wiped them out in a genocidal war and less than 1,000 white Afrikaners were able to go up to the Transvaal and occupy it and seize it because it was largely deserted after the genocide.
The number of Whites in the many "Great Treks" was not high. Often, Whites moved in bands of less than 1,000 people, but were able to occupy and hold vast pieces of territory. The Boers actually created several republics, mostly in the late 19 century. There were at least four Boer Republics, two of which remained and grew into true countries. The other Boer Republics, in Natal for example, were wiped out – but by the English and not Blacks.
Furthermore, ownership of land was not important for blacks back then.
If one wants to argue historically that Whites Colonized southern Africa then you must also admit that Blacks to colonized the region. The right of Whites to the Cape is indisputable. It is quite possible, that if we went by history alone, we would find that Boers alone could lay claim to perhaps a 25%-35% of the entire land area of South Africa - maybe even much more.