Talk:Bantu peoples

South Africa-Centrism
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)

Maps
I made a diagram of the Bantu expansion and added it to the article. Any comments or suggestions? Also, I will soon create a vector version of the image on de (Verbreitung der Bantu-Sprachen und potentielle Urheimat), which is a rather fine-grained map of the presence of Bantu peoples in sub-Saharan Africa. &mdash; mark &#9998; 11:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nice map! More artfully done than usual. I personally can find no fault with it. Its a bit vague, but then I guess the facts are a bit vague too. Thanks.Peregrine981 12:20, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Indeed, the facts and hypotheses are not very specific either.
 * I re-made the map of the German Wikipedia into Image:Bantu present distribution.png. As I first want to trace the original source, I won't add it to the article yet. I guess it could also be used at Bantu languages. However, that one needs other maps as well (distribution of different Bantu languages, etc.). We'll see.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 16:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This map (and others like it) has problems, in that it implies there are no Bantu west of what looks like the Fish River in South Africa. That may have been true in historical times, as that's where the British settlers met the advancing Xhosa, but is no longer the case, as there's been large scale migration of people from the Eastern to the Western Cape. How useful is a map like this? There are Bantu in Europe these days. What is the criteria for the dividing line?
 * posted by, 16:53, June 11 2005
 * See Image:Bantu present distribution.png for sources used in creating this map. The southern African part of the map is for the most part based on the map by Irene Tucker found in Nurse (2001) A SIL Survey Report for the Bantu Languages (link), which I think is a reasonably accurate rendering of present-day Bantu homelands. That map is meant as an ethnolinguistic map and therefore focuses on homelands, not taking into account recent migration patterns. If you have better sources, be sure to let me know so that I can try to update the map. &mdash; mark &#9998; 16:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC).
 * I see the original source is based on research from 1948, however it has a disclaimer that puts me more at ease. The Wikipedia version claims that this represents current distribution, which is not true at all, and needs to change. 1948 is an interesting date to use, as it's the year the National Party came to power in South Africa, with their policy of apartheid, and creating homelands along with attempts to claim that Africans did not historically exist in other areas. See also African languages for an alternative map that takes the distribution further westward. I don't have better sources unfortunately, just suggest more care with the wording of what's being described. -- Greenman 14 June 2005
 * I've removed the map for now, mainly because of its anachronistic name. I could re-upload it under a different name, but I would prefer a really recent map instead of a map based on a 1948 linguistic classification (shame on me). I guess I've been too bold; we should wait for more accurate data before adding a map like this. &mdash; mark &#9998; 13:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In its current form, at least on my monitor, it's very difficult to distinguish between "dull yellow" and yellow. It took me several seconds before I realized that there were two different shades there. Maybe different colors, or at least a greater variation? AbdiViklas

Recent addition
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. &mdash; mark &#9998; 09:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * From memory, something similar appears in Guns, Germs and Steel. --Error 04:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Early Nomadic Bantu
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 &mdash; 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! &mdash; mark &#9998; 00:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge?
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)
 * 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)

Thanks for replying. I'm not convinced by your answer: it's a little like saying 'yid' is only offensive to Jews, and is often used in books, so therefore it's ok! I'll see what I want to do next. Meantime I'm posting it on Editing Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/to do to see if we can stimulate some more debate. Guinnog 18:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Do not merge. Referring to people as Bantu is not (always) offensive, many people self identify as Bantu. It is a term that is widely used, not only by linguists. Even if the term were offensive (which it isn't), it still warrants its own article – nigger and kike have articles too.--Ezeu 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. So lets make the Bantu article more like the kike article. In South Africa, where I heard it very often, it was as offensive to me as nigger, and it still is. Guinnog 22:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The main problem, I think, is that Guinnog is coming here from a South-African perspective, where Bantu indeed has a pejorative connotation. However, as early as June last year I noted that it might in fact be better to split the article into one about Bantu in the S-A context and about Bantu as an ethnolinguistic term (largely outside S-A). With Brian and Ezeu I want to stress that it is absolutely not the case that this term in ethnolinguistic use is pejorative. All non-SA Bantu people I know feel like Ezeu on this issue. &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a very sensible solution. — Amcaja 12:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

As everyone knows, "races" don't exist. However I don't think that the article claims that βantu (in Kintu, the root of "bantu" and "bantoid" languages, the "b" was actually a voiced bilabial fricative, like Tshivenda "vh") are a "race". This would be similar to saying that the Ethiopians are a "race distinct from" βantu, this is as dumb as saying that the French are not Germanic simply because they speak a Romance language. The Ethiopians (and ancient Egyptians) speak a "Semitic" language, they don't look Jewish to me. Language does not define "population group".
 * 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)

But of course, since "distinct population groups" are a figment of many peoples collective immaginations, let's not have the article say that βantu are a "distinct" grouping of people. I strongly belive that people should be vey careful what names they call themselves, especially when using ill-defined names which people can intrepet any which way they choose. -ZyXoas 198.54.202.226 11:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot my password 8-))

Meaning of the word
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)

It's untrue, and your explanation is better. Be bold.

SteveH 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC) You have almost the most correct and sane explanation oof the word Bantu. Congratulations we need more people like you who see beyond countries and embrace the essance of Umuntu "humanity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkaranikataka (talk • contribs) 04:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

usa
bantus in the us are predominately muslim and from somolia. this article is lacking.


 * I think you are confusing some things here. &mdash; mark &#9998; 07:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * no, it's true, american immigrant bantus are muslim and refugees from somolia.


 * The unidentified contributor is half right. U.S. immigration policy in recent years has provided for special immigration of Somali refugees from primarily agricultural communities in southern & southwestern Somalia, in contradistinction to primarily pastoralist Somali & urbanites with pastoralist history or heritage, who are widely referred to as "Somali Bantu."  However, this is a neologism from outside, although in the U.S. context many of the people concerned may use the term now as it is important to their standing in the U.S.


 * During the warfare of the early 1990s associated with the collapse of the Somali state and with devastating famine, the agricultural communities were particularly targetted, having already been regarded as racially distinct by other Somali, but within a system of racial classification that does not correspond to that in the U.S. or derive from the reifications of "race" associated with the European "Enlightenment." In particular the key distinguishing feature used for discrimination has been translated by one anthropologist, Catherine Bestemann, as "hard hair," i.e. curly or nappy, whereas other Somali generally have straight hair.


 * Some of the agricultural community members are descended from enslaved persons imported from further south; there is some debate as to whether some may have locally autochthonous ancestry. The denomination of them as "Bantu" refers to this southern origin.  In a very few locations some of the very oldest people actually speak a Bantu language, but nearly all so-called "Somali Bantu" speak Somali as their home language, albeit a distinct dialect.  Likewise "Somali Bantu" identify themselves with clans in the elaborate Somali clan structure, but this identification seems to derive from patron-client relationships that developed as slavery declined in the colonial era.  Agricultural production was socially disdained by Somali pastoralists in the past, and there has been a continuing linkage among the "racial", occupational and descent-from-slaves elements of external identification and discrimination of these communities and their members within Somali society.


 * The inversion of that discrimination into advantaged access to immigration with refugee status to the U.S., based on U.S. American sensitivities about racism & projection of U.S. racial concepts into Africa, has caused a degree of tension and defensiveness in older Somali immigrant communities in the U.S.


 * However, the comments by the anonymous writer also illustrate the pitfalls of treating "Bantu" as an ethnonym. It is not true that "the Bantus" in the U.S. are all and only Muslim "Somali Bantu."  Apart from African-Americans whose ancestors were enslaved, many of whom spoke Bantu languages (the most famous example of dialect persistence, the Gullah communities of Georgia & Caroliina sea islands, seems to relate to Angola, as their name itself indicates), a great many recent African immigrants of the so-called neo-diaspora had or have a Bantu language as their home language and might accept the term as referring to themselves at least in the sense of "a person" or "people" perhaps indicated by Ezeu above.  If a Ugandan is a Bantu, presumably so is a Ugandan immigrant.  And if Somali people whose enslaved ancestors are presumed to have spoken a Bantu language (though not a single one for all in the category), usually no longer identifiable, but who themselves only speak Somali, then it would seem that many African-Americans of more temporally distant African ancestry might also be called Bantu.  In these latter two cases "Bantu" becomes divorced from language and most elements culture & thus appears logically to reduce to a racial term in a biologistic sense that I, like Guinnog, would regard as spurious.


 * Moreover it is quite clear that the term Somali Bantu was created to capture a view of their history of enslavement and racial discrimination, which may be fair enough. But there are many instances of its use by both government sources and in the general press where it clearly is taken to refer to a "real" or "biological" racial distinction.  This is somewhat paradoxical in that it reinforces though transvalues the discriminatory racialization, but within a U.S. context where other Somali people are not a superordinate group, but instead are likely to be identified as "black" along with "Somali Bantu", recent African and Diaspora immigrants, and African-Americans of long U.S. American ancestry.  Clearly identification as "Bantu" is at present a powerful source of access to resources for Somali people who have survived devastating and harrowing experiences of a very particular sort.  However other Somali immigrants, particularly those who would like to bring in relatives & who may also have had pretty harrowing lives in Somali civil conflict & refugee camps, may resent the "Bantu" preference, as they see it.  Over the long run it will be interesting to see if common Somali cultural features (especially language & Somali inflected Islam) wear away at the distinction, or whether its legal and policy institution will persist, perhaps at a cost to other culturally-linked resources for the new immigrants.  Ngwe 09:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * well this got mostly settled - Bantus (Somalia), but still no link to it from this article. africa, forever understudied.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.51.202.192 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Bantus aren't dead!
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)


 * 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.) &mdash; mark &#9998; 19:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Split article per previous discussions
I have split the article and created Bantu peoples of South Africa, and also posted a note to Africa-related regional notice board requesting expansion of this article. --Ezeu 14:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that, Ezeu. &mdash; mark &#9998; 19:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag, which doesn't apply anymore. &mdash; mark &#9998; 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent addition
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 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. &mdash; mark &#9998; 21:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oranges and Peaches
The article states:
 * It could be that the Southernward expansion of the Bantu into Tsetse fly country had to wait until their cattle evolved to be resistant to the Nagana disease.

I don't think so. This was obviously written by someone who doesn't understand either Evolution, common farming and breeding practices, or even the simple fact that different societies constantly interact. It also sounds suspiciously to me like one of those delightful "You bantus were not here when our forefathers arrived in South Africa" theories. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Zyxoas, you are quite right. Linguistic & archaeological evidence concerning the Khoekhoe in southern Africa has led scholars (e.g. Christopher Ehret, Richard Elphick) to argue since the 1970s that cattle were adopted by some hunting-foraging people ("San" or "Bushmen") south of the Orange River several centuries before immigrant communities of livestock-keeping farmers presumed to speak Bantu languages arrived in the area (ca. beginning of the common era for the cattle & perhaps 4th c. CE for the farming communities along the coasts & somewhat later on the highveld).  Presumably these most southerly hunting-foraging communities got them from others intermediary to the then furthest extent of settlement by Bantu-speaking farmers.


 * There are of course large areas where Bantu-speaking peoples live and lived historically where cattle aren't/weren't kept due to nagana (isiZulu word) a.k.a. trypanosomiasis (a term reflecting the Greco-Roman invasions of the 19th c. ;->). There's no automatic link between Bantu-speaking and cattle-keeping.  Spread of cattle to previously tsetse-ridden areas wasn't due to cattle resistance but to bush clearing connected to shifting cultivation & population growth, creating a new ecology which grazing helped to maintain.  Leroy Vail had an article in the Journal of Southern African Studies in the 1980s documenting how colonial land-use and labor practices in Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) led to a reexpansion of the tsetse zone.  Ngwe 10:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. It was observed no later than the publication of Vol. I of The Oxford History of South Africa (1969 I think) & possibly considerably earlier that the limit of pre-industrial settlement by Bantu-speakers in southern Africa approximated the 15" per year rainfall isohyet; i.e. the constraint on settlement for such communities wasn't livestock but cultivation. Likewise the earliest phase of far southern farming settlement was focused on coastal and riverside areas with particular soil types & perhaps ease of cultivation -- both iron tools and cattle numbers in proportion to sheep & goats were much more restricted in this early phase than they came to be by the 9th or 10th century CE according to the archaeological evidence.  Ngwe 10:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems bigger than expanding article?
Hi, I am new to Wikipedia & have some concerns that I may unintentionally violate etiquette by overly strong statements. If I do so, please have forbearance and give me guidance as to better approaches.

In my view this article has problems bigger than needing expansion. Let me raise two key ones.

1) Bantu is in fact a language classification and not an ethnonym, so that it is quite wrong to refer to "the Bantu" as if speakers of Bantu languages constitute or ever constituted a single social collectivity (as the discussion of expansion does), or even as a collection of ethnic groups a la the first sentence of the article.

2) The timeline for the spread of populations of speakers of Bantu languages is simply mistaken, being approximately 40 years out of date. (Somewhat relatedly, the descripton of the controversy between Greenberg and Guthrie, while not wrong, does not reflect the fact that it has been superseded).  Bantu-speakers arrived in eastern southern Africa, i.e. southern Mozambique, Swaziland & Mpumalanga & KwaZulu-Natal provinces in S. Africa no later than the 5th century of the common era and probably a bit earlier, & were in what is now Botswana and the northerly S.A. provinces west of of Mpumalanga & maybe the Free State by the 8th or 9th centuries.  A similar revision of dates would apply to the "western stream" of population movements along the Atlantic coast and westerly regions of south central Africa in Angola, Namibia, & parts of the DRC and Zambia.  A good synthetic source on the eastern dynamics is Christopher Ehret's recent book _An African Classical Tradition_. A variety of writings by Jan Vansina bear on the western side & also on a debate over how to conceptualize the "two streams" spatially -- to simplify, one version would work with arrows sort of like those on one of the maps now up, while Vansina argues for recursive dispersals from centers, in which we would see arrows going west, east and north as well as south.

But at this point I come up against a question about Wikipedia's common acceptance principle. I believe that both of the points above in fact represent the great weight of current scholarly views, if not absolute consensus (the basic dating point would be close to consensus though dynamics remain more debated). However, point 1) is not commonly accepted in more general journalistic usage or what we might call serious popular literature, which tends, like the current Wikipedia article, to treat "Bantu" as an ethnonym in itself or as an umbrella term for a category of ethnic groups rather than a classification of languages.

In other words, the most commonly accepted scholarly views diverge from the most commonly accepted "serious popular culture" views.

I am not clear on how Wikipedia philosophy and "neutral viewpoint" would deal with such a divergence. This problem arises concerning many African topics. It worries me a good deal. Much of what is commonly accepted relies on perpetuating images and concepts that were inaccurate when first promulgated and now are both inaccurate and outdated, both in the sense that scholarship has developed further, and in the sense that Africa today continues to be presented as though nothing has changed since the early days of European colonization and as if the images from those times were accurate then. I greatly fear that the common acceptance rule, applied to widely held views of Africa, means the perpetuation of false information and ideas.

What does Wikipedia do when accuracy conflicts with widely held but mistaken views?

(My username is Cclowe -- the sign name link does not seem to be working and the tilde key cap on my keyboard doesn't seem to register inside the browser)


 * Those are very good points. I largely agree with your characterization of popular and scholarly views. I think we should stick first and foremost to scholarly views, since those are the views for which we can cite academically published reliable sources. After that, we can note that popular use of Bantu as an ethnonym of course. However, I want to note that from about 1950 onwards, 'Bantu' is also in common as an ethnonym in cultural anthropological and sociological literature, cf. titles like The relationship between the Bakola and the Bantu peoples of the coastal regions of Cameroon and their perception of commercial forest exploitation (Mawoung 2001), Bantu ethnic and traditional realities in Congo-Kinshasa (Nkamany A Baleme 1999), Les peuples bantu : migration, expansion et identité culturelle (Obenga 1989), Bantu ontology and its implications for African socio-economic and political institutions (Unah 1998).
 * If you would like to rewrite the article to reflect the current scholarly views on the Bantu expansion, by all means go ahead! &mdash; mark &#9998; 07:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mark, I probably will do as you suggest regarding the spread of Bantu-speaking peoples. However, in my view your dating of the literature is off.  In fact the sociological and anthropological uses of the term date from about the 1920s and are closely related to colonialism.  In South Africa at that date it was a "liberal" alternative to "Native," and at that time such usage, like other aspects of South African racialism, fit quite comfortably within general British and European (and U.S., mostly via missionaries though increasingly also foundations) imperial usages -- indeed South Africa was often regarded as leading the way by overseas whites.  Usage of "Bantoe" by Afrikaans-speaking anthropologists lagged a bit in South Africa in breadth of acceptance compared to "Bantu" for Anglophone ones, but that shifted dramatically after World War II & the term became associated with the elaboration of the ethno-racial concepts underlying Separate Development ("Grand Apartheid") and its legal infrastructure, as you know.  Outside of South Africa the term Bantu as an ethnonym went into fairly steep decline especially after 1960 in the scholarly literature in anthropology, sociology and history.  Many persistent uses reflect the later work of scholars of essentially colonialist outlook who sometimes promoted untenable views, if not simply reprintings of older works, though uses such as that by Victor Turner that were mentioned would be somewhat more complex.  It may also be that these generalizations are truer of Anglophone scholarship than Francophone (would also be interesting to see if there's a Belgian vs. French difference).


 * Your very recent title citations of articles by African scholars are quite interesting. I would hypothesize that it will be more common to find such usage in areas where communities speaking Bantu languages are proximate or interact extensively with communities speaking other kinds of languages.  Pretty clearly that is the case in your Cameroon cite, may have a bearing on the Congo one.  In some cases it may be just a convenient shorthand.  Some of these titles seem to reflect arguments about underlying cultural unities, although they still seem somewhat geographically restricted.  I know the usage appears in some literature on Rwanda, mostly older in origin but still reprinted in some cases, that wants to promote putative racially distinct "Hamitic" or other ancestry for Tutsi people despite the universality of Kinyarwanda (Bantu language) & now well-documented intermarriage and ethnic status mobility prior to colonial reifications in identity documents, access to education etc.


 * Your citations pretty clearly indicate that NPOV requires recognition of such usage. However, I would argue that it is not NPOV to treat such usage as a consensus convention,  which I think the present version mostly does, and which I don't think is true.
 * Ngwe 09:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris, I have to admit that the '1950 onwards' date that I gave was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I am mostly familiar with African linguistic and anthropological linguistic literature, in which the term Bantu is used without any reservation both in the linguistic (phylo-genetic) and in the ethnological sense. You are right that the citations I gave are quite recent; I'd have to check if it is as easy to find similar examples from earlier years; your arguments would seem to indicate that it shouldn't be.
 * As a linguistic appelation, Bantu has of course been in use at least since Meinhof's (1895) vergleichenden Wörterbuch der Bantusprachen (I'm not sure if Bleek used it); I think this article would need to mention that in this sense, it has never been very controversial. Anyway, it would be great if you could put your knowledge to use for the good of this article, and hopefully many others. I fully agree that this article will need to detail the use and connotations of the term 'Bantu' much like you have done above, rather than simply joining the masses in using the term in some popular, misinformed sense &mdash; that's precisely what an encyclopedia is for, in my opinion. &mdash; mark &#9998; 12:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Mark, thanks for the encouragement. I will try to take this on but am still working out NPOV for the issues being discussed.  The attribution to Bleek of first application of the term Bantu to a large group of languages still categorized that way is pretty conventional.   An American missionary to Zulu-speakers in Natal, Lewis Grout, I think published an observation of widespread similarities a little earlier, but he called the category Zingian (cf. Zinj, Azania etc.).  I believe Bleek also is credited, along with some Methodist missionaries working among the Mfengu, with working out noun classifications and related concords.  He and his daughter also are the source of most evidence that we have about the languages and cultures of a number of southern African Bushman/San groups that no longer survive. Ngwe 05:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Research or unsourced?
The following text was removed for being original research:
 * It could be that the southward expansion of the Bantu into tsetse fly country had to wait until their cattle evolved to be resistant to the nagana disease.

This sounds vaguely familiar. Maybe I read it in Guns, Germs, and Steel? If anyone has a copy of the book handy and could verify this, please feel free to readd to the article. I think it's in Chapter 19: How Africa Became Black. However, I might just be imagining that I've heard this before. Thanks. Ufwuct 15:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see it this way: in the light of Verifiability, unsourced is the same as original research. If we allow unsourced statements, no matter how familiar they sound (and to me this one sounds vaguely familiar too), we have no principled way to distinguish between solid research, original research, or mere fringe theories. I think Wikipedia has been far too lenient in allowing statements like this to live unsourced, that's why I am taking WP:V seriously by pulling out unsourced statements.
 * So if you consult Diamond's GG&S and find this statement, feel free to put it back in the article, along with its source. &mdash; mark &#9998; 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, whomever it was that wrote this obviously does not understand evolution very much.

Anyway, it is really so difficult to believe that the people could've simply got suitable cattle and learnt the appropriate agriculture for the semi-arid climate from their Khoikhoin neighbours? That's a lot more plausible than cattle "evolving" over a period of less than a few hundred years.

"How Africa became black", hey? It wouldn't be the first time a book on Africa got it completely wrong. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jared Diamond is a provocative thinker but not a historian, and in fact his overarching historical theory is highly reductive. If he made this argument, he was in error, and the removed speculation is erroneous.  In fact both historical linguistic and archaeological evidence show the spread of cattle and goats and sheep preceded the spread of Bantu-language speaking humans southward in eastern and southern Africa.  See for example Christopher Ehret, "The First Spread of Food Production to Southern Africa," in The Archaeological and Linguistic Reconstruction of African History, ed. C. Ehret and M. Posnansky (U. California Press, 1982).  If the animals got somewhere before the people did, then inability of the animals to spread couldn't have held up human spread.


 * Ehret's more recent book, An African Classical Age: Eastern & Southern Africa in World History, 1000 B.C. to A.D. 400 (U. Virginia Press, 1998) is strongly recommended to anyone interested in the "eastern stream" of Bantu-language speakers, with a great deal of interest on interactions of proto-Bantu-speakers with ancestral speakers of Chadic, Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic language speakers in the more northerly phases of the spread. He's a historical linguist, but knowledgeable about the archaeology.  Looking for articles by Ehret and Jan Vansina & esp. ones where they debate each would be a quick way into the most recent evolutions of efforts to interpret the shape and timing of spread of Bantu-speaking peoples.  Chris Lowe 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

African Americans
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)
 * 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)

PGAN002's edit
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)

How much migration?
If you look on original works (see also sources of the de.wiki article, most of them in English) it is convincingly show, that there was no great wave of invasion, but nevertheless the investigators distinguish Bantu from Bantu-assimilized Khoisan. And still today there are differences of the phenotypes of typical Khoisan and typical Bantu. These facts suggest, that there was not only a change of techniques and customs but also a change of people. Of course, that doesn't mean that anybody of the precolonial populations would have practised apartheid. Anywhere in the world, not only in Africa, different behaviours were possible: coexistence in distance, peaceful mixture, killing victors and (I beg the readers' pardon) fucking victors. --Ulamm 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bantu is a linguistic category. It is not a racial group or a biological population.  Bantu-speaking peoples have interacted with numbers of other peoples speaking other languages and having biological variation in addition to the biological variations within and among Bantu-speaking peoples.  For example, KiSwahili is a Bantu language with considerable admixture of Arabic-derived vocabulary, and the Swahili ethnic group is a Bantu-speaking people who have a particular history of interaction with Arabic-speaking peoples that influences their sense of culture and identity.  In southern Africa the numbers of peoples who would fit into a category of "Bantu assimilated Khoisan" are exceedingly small, the Kgalagadi people in Botswana perhaps, possibly a group in Namibia, but the tiny numbers who remain distinctively Khoesan (for lack of a better term) don't speak Bantu languages by and large.  Instead there are Bantu-speaking groups that show cultural evidences of having absorbed Khoekhoe groups, e.g. the Xhosa-speaking peoples (not all of whom are Xhosa, any more than all English speakers are English) have a language more strongly marked by Khoekhoe influences than the Zulu or Swazi, who still show some influences.  Language shift does not always go with political dominance -- to the extent that some of the ancestors of the "Tutsi" in Rwanda and Burundi were outsiders who may have spoken Nilotic languages, they intermarried with KinyaRwanda speakers and their children or grandchildren grew up with the mother tongue, so that Tutsi are equally Bantu-speakers, and speakers of the same Bantu language, as Hutu -- and the lines between the categories are blurred and degree of conformity to "phenotypic" stereotypes are highly exaggerated.


 * There is no such thing as a "typical Bantu phenotype." Chris Lowe 09:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget the Batwa ("Pygmie") peoples of Central East Africa who speak Bantu languages but have very peculiar cultures (not typically Khoisan).

It truly disappoints me that so many editors are absolutely determined to have articles treat "Bantu" as an ethnic group when this is obviously false. Are Batutsi, Bakgalagadi, Batwa, Mandela's amaThembu, etc all "Bantu"?

The truth is that linguistic groupings often do not coincide with ethnic groupings. You have Germanic people who speak Romance languages, descendants of amaZulu who speak isiXhosa (amaMfengu), Zambians who speak a Sotho-Tswana language, millions of English speakers with West African ancestors, Native Americans who speak a Romance language, Manchurians who speak Chinese languages, and the list goes on... Language does not always agree with ethnicity, and these articles should reflect that. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 15:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Biblical Migration Theories
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)
 * 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)

"this war lead to most parts of north africa becoming deserts"

That's almost as ridiculous as the "wandering uterus" theory of hysteria (okay, so it's actually MORE ridiculous).

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I think you'll find "science" + Bible adds up to Bullshit, actually. --86.137.152.133 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Comment
Your History is good, only that I get the feeling you need to research wider and avoid dwelling only on the written one sided ancient colonial stories and basing only on South Africa. Bantu is an all inclussive word standing for Humanity. The researchers were all Europeans if i am not wrong, What about Indigenous History, is it Because Humanity leaves in self denial that we use this to corrupt other peoples descent and ancestral dignity. history Attests that Zimbabwe was UnIhhabitable and Swampy Years down the line. Did the Bantu originate from the swamp?? Jkaranikataka 10:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Bantu" as a category is a colonial invention. In actual African cultures the word varies in different ways.  Can't help the fact that the examples I know best are southern African but if we went wider the variation would be greater.  But just in that region, in Zulu it is abantu, in Swati it is bantfu, in Sotho it is batho, in Shona it is vanhu, also vanhu in Tsonga; in Sukuma (Tanzania) banhu, in Kwyanyama (Namibia = W. Bantu) ovanu, in Swahili (E. & C. Africa), watu.


 * I'm sure Africans who travelled noticed the similarities, especially if they came from non-Bantu language areas, or came from Bantu language areas and encountered people with different language cultures. But the reason the article is called "Bantu," and not "Watu" or "Vanhu," is because as a linguistic and cultural categorization it was made by Europeans from within European ideas at a certain period of history about how classify and analyze things (including languages and peoples).  They chose one form of the idea from one language.  (A different linguist than Bleek, Lewis Grout, wanted to call them Zingian languages, after Zinj, a term from ancient Mediterranean sources about East Africa that is related to Zanzibar and to the idea of Azania).


 * To a substantial degree I believe the purpose of the article in the English Wikipedia (and there would be related purposes in other European language versions) is to unpack some of original baggage and some other kinds of mistakes that persist in popular media and culture. Certainly one of my aims, in seeking what I understand to be meant by NPOV and "encyclopedic," is to counter false myths that "corrupt other people's descent and ancestral dignity."


 * There might be a good case for an article on something like "African conceptions of humanity," which could perhaps achieve some of the worthy goals you seek. But that's a different task from the point of this article which has to do with uses of the term as an ethnic designation in English, according to other comments in the talk section. Chris Lowe (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My recent edits.
(part of the "Great Bantu massacre of 2007") included, but were not limited to:


 * 1) Reverting an ill-advised edit by a green nøøb
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Clarified the list of uses of abantu and related words at the bottom
 * 4) Some more linguistically enclined stuff
 * 5) Stressed what had already been agreed to here -- that it is immoral and simply not-nice to use "Bantu" as an ethnic label today
 * 6) 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)
 * 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. (:  Oc t  ane  [ 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)

More big edits
I have made significant edits. What I believe they do is a) resolve some internal contradictions by more consistent use of recent scholarship, b) provide references, c) clarify certain matters with more explanation, d) systematize references to the relationship between language and ethnicity in line with current scholarly usage.

I also removed a tag to "Main article: Bantu Expansion" because all there was there was a loop back to this article. If someone wants to create a "Bantu Expansion" stub we could put the tag back in & decide on the desired scope of that article & implications for this one. But I'm not sure it's necessary or particularly useful.

There are problems with the "category" links, but they lead to deeper problems about the underlying categories themselves. Most immediately and urgently, "Bantu" is still incorrectly referred to as a single ethnic group under the category of Ethnic Groups.

But also there ought to be a category link to linguistics, except that under the linguistic categories there is extreme geographical unevenness reflecting European & Euro-diaspora ethnocentricity. Since I am unfamiliar with how categories are generated or if changes should be vetted, I am loathe to monkey with them, but African linguistics is currently getting extremely short shrift there.

Chris Lowe 13:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, the edits were absolutely beautiful and you were as insightful as always. Here are a few points:


 * 1) This article is ultimately about the invalid use of the term as an ethnic label -- the linguistic version exists at Bantu languages. So, it is inherently problematic. I had removed the category (to add an article to a category simple write somewhere at the bottom) but it was put back since articles should be categorised. I can't think of any appropriate category to put this under, but I don't think it should be under any linguistic categories.
 * 2) Your example about the big men is slightly incorrect (the adjectival concord is wrong). I'll fix it as soon as I'm absolutely sure of the correct form. Also, I'm not so sure that translating "bantu" as "men" instead of "people" is such a good idea.
 * 3) Since this is about an ethnic label, I feel that there is at times a bit too much linguistic discussion. It would be great if some of this were to be added to Bantu languages instead.


 * So, why aren't you more active on Wikipedia? We desperately need more African experts like yourself on the project! Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 14:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Great additions, Chris. This is what Wikipedia needs! What do you mean by 'category link to linguistics'? I agree with Zyxoas that categories related to Bantu linguistics (perhaps you mean things like noun classes, 'free' word order, and tone systems, to name three topics Bantu languages are know for) should have its place in Bantu languages. &mdash; mark &#9998; 09:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Need for merging
Your article needs to merge between, scientific, Scorlaly, Historical and religious proofs that have greately dictated and shaped the beliefs and histories of a peoples. If your claim is true..... How can one explain how the bantus found themselves in the region around cameroon, i mean, from where? did they just exist from nowhere or from somewhere? or are they a unique subgroup created or found existing around the said areas? Jkaranikataka (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jkaranikataka, from this comment and several others earlier I think there is a problem that has to do with what Wikipedia is, and what its accepted rules are. Wikipedia does not seek to prove anything.  Actually "proof" is against the rules, except for reporting other people's published proofs.  There is a rule against original research, which includes personal interpretations that have not been published elsewhere.  That is tied to the rule that material should be verifiable, meaning that it is supported by published sources, to which references should be provided especially when discussing points of debate.


 * Here we come to the heart of the problem. Wikipedia is based on scholarly and to a lesser extent journalistic sources.  While you distinguish scientific and historical sources from scholarly sources, under the definitions Wikipedia uses, science and history are part of scholarship.  So too is the field of religious studies, but not the actual content of any religion.  In particular, knowledge from divine revelation cannot be used, because it is not verifiable, but is a matter of faith.


 * I do not say this to insult your apparent faith, just to explain a problem. If we take ideas that people believe as revealed truth, whose revelation should we use? Jewish? Christian? Muslim? Latter Day Saints (Mormon)? Ba'hai? Hindu? And so on.


 * Up above you ask if people in Zimbabwe emerged from a swamp. Oddly enough, many oral traditions about where they came from in the beginning held among a number of southern African peoples, those often grouped as Nguni (Xhosa, Thembu, Mpondo, Bhaca, Mpondomise, Zulu, Swazi, Ndebele etc.) say that they (and/or humanity) originated from a reed (umhlanga), which sometimes is reported as referring more widely to a hole or cave in a wet swampy place. Now I don't particularly believe that myself, but it poses another version of the problem you raise -- suppose we took your suggestion to treat the bible as a source, and it conflicts with the oral tradition of some African peoples?


 * A further problem with religious sources is that they are subject to wide and unverifiable interpretation. The bible in the strictest sense says very little about Africa.  There are a few references to Ethiopia.  But the idea that Ham has anything to do with Africa does not come from the bible, to take a crucial example that you cite.  The bible does not associate Ham with Africa.  That idea was developed by Europeans in relatively recent centuries to allow their growing racialism to conform to their biblical beliefs at the time.  Even later racialist European scientists, some of whom did not believe in literal biblical truth at all, took the older non-biblical religious interpretation that Africans were the sons of Ham and turned it into a racial classification, so-called Hamites, who were now no longer all Africans, but a sub-group from northeastern Africa held to have white ancestry.  The racialist scientists then tried to attribute all African cultural achievements to the influence, both biological and cultural, of so-called Hamitic conquerors.


 * This false racial science has since been debunked for the racist claptrap that it is. But I feel I should explain the background so you understand why people here are reacting to your invocation of Ham the way they are.


 * The bigger point is that since the bible says little about Africa, it is easy to make suppositions. Other European racialist bible readings said Africans were not "sons of Ham", but instead bore "the mark of Cain," in order to justify slavery treating Africans as inherently "hewers of wood and drawers of water." Notice that this view and the "sons of Ham" view are not really compatible, and that none of the bible passages about Cain or Ham actually mention Africa at all.


 * This article is about the use of the term Bantu, primarily in English here for English Wikipedia, as an ethnic term, and about the peoples to whom it refers, often inaccurately. Religious texts are not appropriate sources.  One could start an article on "religious theories of African origins" or maybe "of African ethnic history" and it could be an interesting and valuable one.  But even there you would not be allowed just to offer your own interpretation, but would need to cite verifiable published sources that someone has held the theory you were describing.


 * While this reply may seem unsatisfactory to you, I urge you to consult the Wikipedia pages about sources, original research, verifiability and neutral point of view. Thanks for raising these issues. Chris Lowe (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One further clarification: Wikipedia should include Nguni cultural interpretations of their origins in umhlanga in an appropriate article somewhere, and, under NPOV (neutral point of view), should just report them. That is, if I wrote the article, I shouldn't include my opinion that those interpretations probably are wrong historically and scientifically, I should just write, "this is what the traditions say."  A link to relevant historical and scientific theories would be appropriate.  Likewise somewhere there should be an article about uses (and abuses) of the bible to interpret African history, that reports various views without asserting or denying their factuality, although reporting the extensive controversy over the "Hamitic hypothesis" (pseudo-biblical scientific theory) would be appropriate.  If someone creates such an article, it would be fine to include a link from this page to it. Chris Lowe (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I get your point and thank you for the time. Though Bantu is used or said as founded by latter day linguists, i do feel the word should be given its rightful place.
 * was it not existing before then, and though there are variarions, but looking at it clossely is it not the same word? In most bantu languages V, B, F, Vh and others though they seem to exist as per the english alphabetical order are in reality non existent and are one depending on their application(which is mostly mis applied), their mere existence was as a result of the said language as used which comprises of a very different alphabetical order than otherwise intended.
 * Therefore the variations can be or are a modern day creation and the word still remains nomatter what or how the early bantu decided to right it, Wright, Made it written or confuse it.
 * Since this is not research but a channell of information i do feel the information should also be made to reflect the actual picture as was and is. clearly you have pointed out some very enlightening issues, but can we afford to live it as is, even if the way history is written is abit wanting.Jkaranikataka (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Gadalla deleted
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)

File:Congolese lady.jpg A Kongo woman in the Republic of Congo
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)

Bantu Population, Bantu Relative Homogeneity, DNA Affinities Link & Tutsi/Hima and Nilo-Saharan Conflicts And Other Topics (Original Discussion-Please See Spin Outs Below)
Why are we removing the link demonstrating DNA affinities? This is relevant

Antonio Salas et al., The Making of the African mtDNA Landscape, Am J Hum Genet. 2002 November; 71(5): 1082–1111. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC385086/

Why are we removing the information regarding ethnic conflict with Tutsi/hima and Nilo-Saharan? This is also very relevant:

Present Demography- The Bantu family is fragmented into hundreds of individual groups comprising a population of over 400 million people (approximately half the population of Sub-Saharan Africa) predominating demographically, culturally, linguistically and politically in a contiguous zone throughout all of Sub-Equatorial Africa, specifically all the nineteen nations of Central, Southeastern and Southern Africa: Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. In Kenya and Uganda there are also significant remaining ancestral Nilo-Saharan speaking communities, as these countries were the final points of the Bantu migration, and this cultural diversity has often led to ethnic conflict over the years for political and cultural dominance. 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. The Sub-Equatorial African island nations of Madagascar, Comoros, Seychelles, and Mauritius off the southeastern coast of Africa and São Tomé and Príncipe off the southwestern coast of Africa also include some Bantu communities, although other foreign  cultural elements  due to the migration of  French, Portuguese, Arab, Indian and Southeast Asian settlers predominate in these nations.

Please give a reason before further edit changes please.

Mitochondrial and Y DNA does not show an individual's full ancestry. In actual fact, the Tutsi have very little Afro-Asiatic ancestry and are instead closely related to the Hutu:


 * "generations of gene flow obliterated whatever clear-cut physical distinctions may have once existed between these two Bantu peoples – renowned to be height, body build, and facial features. With a spectrum of physical variation in the peoples, Belgian authorities legally mandated ethnic affiliation in the 1920s, based on economic criteria. Formal and discrete social divisions were consequently imposed upon ambiguous biological distinctions. To some extent, the permeability of these categories in the intervening decades helped to reify the biological distinctions, generating a taller elite and a shorter underclass, but with little relation to the gene pools that had existed a few centuries ago. The social categories are thus real, but there is little if any detectable genetic differentiation between Hutu and Tutsi." -- Joseph C. Miller (ed.), New Encyclopedia of Africa, Volume 2, Dakar-Hydrology, Charles Scribner's Sons (publisher)


 * It also goes without saying that the Tutsi do not speak Afro-Asiatic languages, so they are likely not Afro-Asiatic remnants. That would instead be the Iraqw. Also, when you write of "ethnically and linguistically related ethnic groups in Africa" and then link that phrase to the demographics of Africa page, you are insinuating that all the myriad populations listed there are ethnically and linguistically related. This is both completely off-topic and obviously untrue. Middayexpress (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Tutsi ydna does not show Afro-asiatic affinities; the mtdna does Michael C. Campbell­, Sarah A. Tishkoff, African Genetic Diversity: Implications for Human Demographic History, Modern Human Origins, and Complex Disease Mapping, Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics Vol. 9 (Volume publication date September 2008)(doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164258) this paper also notes the relative homogeneity of bantu groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

here is the link http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2009/04/30/1172257.DC1/Tishkoff.SOM.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with that paper. It's not on mtDNA per se, but does suggest that the Tutsi are similar to the Maasai and other Nilotic groups with some Cushitic admixture. Middayexpress (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not willing to engage in a talk discussion with you if you keep reverting things over and over again.

(1) Half of Subsaharan Africa - please stop reverting this without cause (2) Tutsi Afro-Asiatic Affinities- I have provided two DNA sources you have provided NONE please do not revert otherwise (3) Bantu homogeneity-I have provided two DNA sources you have provided NONE please do not revert otherwise (4) Present Demography title-this section is about present demography, the whole article is about demographics so to change it otherwise makes no sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please let us resolve this on the talk page before reverting again. The onus is on you to provide comparable contradicting sources. DNA trumps oral history in this case about genetic affiliations and you have not provided any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you have to engage in talk page discussion per the WP:BRD cycle. That said:


 * 1) The 400 million figure for the number of Bantu peoples is actually unsourced. It's also completely at odds with the figure supplied in the Butt reference in the first line of the lede. That cites only 100 something million Bantu speakers.
 * 2) The references you have cited do not support the claims you are making. Neither asserts that the Tutsi were originally Afro-Asiatic speakers who absorbed Bantu influences, but in fact the contrary; they assert that the Tutsi were Bantu peoples who absorbed Afro-Asiatic influences. Here's an example of this, from the very paper you linked to above: "Nilo-Saharan and Cushitic speakers from the Sudan, Kenya and Tanzania, as well as some of the Bantu speakers from Kenya, Tanzania and Rwanda (Hutu/Tutsi) constitute another cluster (purple), reflecting linguistic evidence for gene flow amongst these populations over the past ~5,000 years (27, 28)."
 * 3) Though most Bantu are homogenous, there is some internal diversity among them because of the existence of mixed Bantu groups like the Tutsi. The authors also state this (please see the #2 above).
 * 4) Fine. Middayexpress (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am more than happy to engage in a talk page discussion but NOT if you are reverting massive amounts of sourced materials at the same time. Please stop reverting and talk first here that is what I am saying. Point by point.

1) the butt article is outdated. the African population has increased 5x over the past 50 years, so it is currently 400 million. You need to go and add the populations of the 19 predominately bantu countries and it reaches over 400 million not including Cameroon or the Island nations, and excluding the non-bantu populations of south Africa, Uganda and Kenya. the butt article is from 2006 but references far outdated statistics.

2) The DNA is Afro-asiatic. So how did it get there? I agree to changing it to Afro-asiatic ethnic group and note that their linguistic affiliation is unclear. I can add another reference from discover magazine regarding the fact that they adopted the bantu language

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/tutsi-differ-genetically-from-the-hutu/

although the article argues they were previously Nilo-Saharan speaking. So perhaps we can state that they are afro-aisatic genetically but Nilo-Saharan speaking linguistically. Would that be okay with you?

"What does this mean? I think the title says it all: the Tutsi were in all likelihood once a Nilotic speaking population, who switched to the language of the Bantus amongst whom they settled, and from whom they extracted rents."

3)from Salas: "

The AMOVA analysis performed on the 16 Bantu-speaking populations analyzed in the present work showed that almost all the genetic variation (98.8%) was found to be within populations, with the remaining 1.2% between populations (but not significantly different from 0; P=.103). These results again reflect the very high level of genetic homogeneity among these populations. "

The bantu although incorporating many diverse elements due to their common origin ARE VERY RELATIVELY HOMOGENOUS

From Salas scientific DNA study:

'The AMOVA analysis performed on the 16 Bantu-speaking populations analyzed in the present work showed that almost all the genetic variation (98.8%) was found to be within populations, with the remaining 1.2% between populations (but not significantly different from 0; P=.103). These results again reflect the very high level of genetic homogeneity among these populations.

AMOVA analysis was also applied to the whole African data set, using several designs:

1.

Taking all the African populations separately, 79.2% of the variability occurs within populations, whereas 20.8% of the variability occurs between populations.

2.

Grouping the populations by main geographic areas, 10.6% between groups, 12.5% between populations within groups, and 76.9% for variance within groups.

3.

Considering the main groups of African languages (Afroasiatic, Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, and Khoisan), similar values were obtained for the variation within groups (76.8%), but 18.9% was found to occur between populations within groups, with the remaining 4.3% corresponding with differences between groups. (This last was not significantly different from 0; P=.068.)

4.

When populations were grouped into Bantu versus non-Bantu, a similar apportionment of genetic variation was found: 74.9% within populations, 17.2% among populations within groups, and 7.9% among groups.

Therefore, it seems that, in Africa, geography plays an important role in defining differences between the main groups, whereas language plays a lesser role.

The Salas paper which YOU KEEP REMOVING WITHOUT ANY REASON notes this relative homogeneity over and over again. The Bantu groups are very closely related even though they incorporated many other khoisan, Afro-asiatic and Nilotic elements during their migrations. This is consistent with their relatively recent common origin at the border of eastern Nigeria and Cameroon. That is the whole point of the article, it is very strange that you are arguing this without any references or contradicting DNA evidence. " I am giving you links and DNA references you are giving my original research. Please do not revert again without backing up your claims.

1) the butt article is outdated. the African population has increased 5x over the past 50 years, so it is currently 400 million. You need to go and add the populations of the 19 predominately bantu countries and it reaches over 400 million not including Cameroon or the Island nations, and excluding the non-bantu populations of south Africa, Uganda and tanzania

Actually, per WP:BURDEN, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. In any event:

1) The Butt book was published in 2006. You may nonetheless have a point here going by the national population figures alone. Do you have a reference for the 400 million figure?

2) As explained, none of the sources claim that the Tutsi are genetically Afro-Asiatic. They claim that either a) the Tutsi are Bantu like the Hutu albeit with a significant amount of Afro-Asiatic (Cushitic) admixture (please see quote above), or b) the Tutsi are Nilotic like the Maasai and similarly have a significant amount of Afro-Asiatic (Cushitic) admixture. Blogs also aren't reliable sources.

3) I'm not sure why you're insisting on that old Salas paper. I don't disagree that the Bantu are largely homogenous. What I wrote is that there is some internal diversity among them because of the existence of mixed Bantu groups like the Tutsi. Salas doesn't include the Tutsi in his study, so it creates an illusion of complete homogeneity among his Bantu samples. Middayexpress (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, do you understand why it is misleading to state that "Bantu peoples is used as a general ethnolinguistic label for the 300–600 ethnically and linguistically related ethnic groups in Africa" and then link the phrase "ethnically and linguistically related ethnic groups in Africa" to the demographics of Africa page? Middayexpress (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Bantu Population Figures- There is no reference as there has been no book about Bantu Africa spefically, but estimates can be made from

BANTU POPULATION FIGURES Population of SADC  - 277 million Population of EAC - over 140 million ECCAS -138.6 million SADC 277 million + EAC 150 million + ECCAS 131 million, removing Chad and Central African Republic(in ECCAS) Mauritius and Seychelles (in SADC), overlap of Bantu states (between ECCAS, SADC and EAC) and taking into account non-Bantu populations in South Africa, Namibia, Kenya, Uganda and elsewhere, adds up to over 400 million people.

SADC= Angola Botswana,Democratic Republic of the Congo – since 8 September 1997,Lesotho,Malawi, Mauritius – since 28 August 1995 Mozambique,Namibia – since 31 March 1990 (since independence),Seychelles – also previously been a member of SADC from 8 September 1997 until 1 July 2004 then joined again in 2008.,South Africa – since 30 August 1994,Swaziland,Tanzania,Zambia,Zimbabwe EAC=Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi ECCAS=Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Sao Tomé and Principe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

2) Tutsi instability The point is that Tutsis have retained their non-Bantu ethnic and cultural identity-Nilo-Saharan or Afro-Asiatic, they were probably a mixed population (perhaps like the maasai) and I can concede that but the DNA evidence is clear that they are a mixture of these populations. They were also clearly pastoralists which reinforces this link. The YDNA seems to note the Nilo-Saharan element and the MTDNA the Afro-Asiatic element, and the autosomal both. But this is my opinion and original research of course but my REFERENCES to the DNA STUDIES and the BOOKS about their oral history and conflict is what I am arguing here and you are yet to refute. I have cited at least 3 or 4 are clear that this Tutsi-hima-anyakole identity as opposed to the non-Afro-asiatic or Nilo-Saharan identity of the neighboring bantu groups is the main source of instability in the great lakes region. Obviously the Tutsi have significant Bantu admixture there is no doubt about that and it explains their speaking of a bantu language. But their Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan historical identity has been a source of instability in the face of the bantu migration. Other groups in that region also have significant Afro-Asiatic or Nilo-Saharan admixture but it has not been a source of instability and this history has not been retained. Please read the papers or find something contradicting this claims

3) These DNA papers state they are relatively homogenous. The bantu peoples are extremely closely related even with their significant absorption of Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic and Khoisan groups. They have a genetic signature that is unique to them across this population which has been extremely helpful in marking the Bantu migration. It is not misleading at all. The rest of the article makes clear that they encountered other groups during their migration which they incorporated but they are still relatively homogenous. The Salas paper is not old, and all subsequent studies have reinforced his conclusions so I am unclear how that is relevant. The Tishkoff paper included the Tutsi and reinforced that. I am unclear what you are arguing here. Other Bantu groups also have significant Afro-Asiatic admixture as cited in Salas but that does not change the relative homogeneity.

I hope you understand what a migration entails from a common source population... What I am saying seems self-evident but please let me know if I am missing something here that you are arguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Tutsi Genetic Influences (Spinned Out)

 * Let me say I have not read all the sources. And I come with a POV which is pretty old. I have always heard Tutsi people claim to be Afro-Asiatic. Always. Obviously that does not make it so. So what does the DNA say? I am getting conflicting reports, maybe I should read the Tutsi people article to see what the DNA says. Obviously there would be admixture, but what does all of this mean to this article. are we discussing Linguistics or some vague notion of RACE. Linguistics are obviously a cleaner topic? PLEASE try and format the talk page better cuz it is impossible to read--Inayity (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems clear: Modern-day genetic studies of the Y-chromosome suggest that the Tutsi are largely of Bantu extraction (80% E1b1a, 15% B, 4% E3). Paternal genetic influences associated with the Horn of Africa and North Africa are few (1% E1b1b), and are ascribed to much earlier inhabitants who were assimilated. The Tutsi, in general, demonstrate a close genetic kinship with neighboring Bantu populations, particularly the Hutu--Inayity (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no a priori objections to the Tutsi having Afro-Asiatic ancestry either. If they do and that is in fact their origin, then it simply means they are another Iraqw-like relic group in the Great Lakes region. The problem in this instance is that the cited links don't actually indicate this. They indeed seem to state that the Tutsi are either a) of Bantu origin with significant Cushitic admixture, or of Nilotic origin with significant Afro-Asiatic ancestry. The blog seems to indicate the latter. Middayexpress (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Though there are certainly many Bantus, I don't think the total quite adds up to 400 million. Per Derek Nurse, that figure actually seems to be closer to the number of Niger-Congo speakers as a whole ca 2000. There were only around 240 million Bantu speakers at the time. It's doubtful that they would have more than doubled in size in a little over ten years. Middayexpress (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So what is the new users issue? b/c I am not 100% clear on what he is saying. I know the 400 million needs a ref to say so.--Inayity (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The main thrust of his argument seems to be that the Tutsi-Hima aren't of Bantu origin, but rather of Afro-Asiatic origin (which is possible). He also seems to hold that they are still largely of Afro-Asiatic ancestry, though the links he cites don't seem to support this. I'm not sure he fully understands them either because he writes below with regard to the E1b1b Y-DNA haplogroup that "the YNDA has no elblb the MTDNA does." Middayexpress (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The YNDA has no elblb the MTDNA does. Please read the rest of the talk page before reverting. REferences have been given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

MTDNA Michael C. Campbell­, Sarah A. Tishkoff, African Genetic Diversity: Implications for Human Demographic History, Modern Human Origins, and Complex Disease Mapping, Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics Vol. 9 (Volume publication date September 2008)(doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164258) this paper also notes the relative homogeneity of bantu groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

YDNA-http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2009/04/30/1172257.DC1/Tishkoff.SOM.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

MTDNA is mother-child.YNDA is father-son. There is no elb1b for YDNA. There IS on MTDNA. Please look at references do not make any changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No offense, but I don't think you fully understand what you're writing and linking to. The E1b1b wiki page is called "Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA)" for a reason. Middayexpress (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay let us make this clear. Tutsi have little E1b1b1. That is YDNA.That is father to son. They do have Afro-Asiatic linkages on their Mtdna side. That is not E1b1b1 obviously (which is only YDNA) but is a signature of Afro-asiatic influences from mothers to their children. Please look at papers. Thank you. I think you are unable to read carefully because I do not see you linking anything to refute my references.

The Tishkoff reference is a mixed Tutsi/hutu sample shows that Tutsi mtDNA (maternal) is 17.7% Afro-Asiatic and 3.8% Nilo-Saharan. This was a mixed Tutsi/Hutu sample but is still highly relevant. See Table 81. That is: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2009/04/30/1172257.DC1/Tishkoff.SOM.pdf A pure Tutsi population may be much higher but in any case.

The Discovermagazine blog research (blogs may not be considered valid, but this is one which does original scientific research) which looked at ydna http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/08/tutsi-differ-genetically-from-the-hutu/ shows that the Tutsi do differ from the hutu, in being much more closely related to the Maasai, who are a mixed Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan population.

The Tutsi Wikipedia page (which we do not cite as a reference) and is itself badly outdated and horribly written states: "owever, in light of recent genetic studies, Hiernaux's theory on the origin of Tutsis in East Africa appears doubtful.[6][7] It has also been demonstrated that the Tutsis harbor little to no Northeastern African genetic influence.[4] On the other hand, there is currently no mtDNA data available for the Tutsi, which might have helped shed light on their background."

The Tishkoff paper is the mtDNA data we need, see above. Please make sure to differentiate between YDNA and mtDNA during this discussion as it is highly relevant in light of the Tishkoff paper. Thank you.

I am willing to concede to changing the article reference to the Tutsi/Hima/Anayakole to "a mixed Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan pastoralist population" if necessary. Studies as to lactose intolerance also solidify the link. Tollsnanak900 (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There doesn't appear to be a Table 81 in that link. Perhaps you mean Table S1? Also, the 17.7% figure you mention seems to be an allusion to how much of the Tutsi's total ancestry can be assigned to the Afro-Asiatic genetic cluster. On which actual page of each paper do you believe they mention the Tutsi's specific mtDNA? Middayexpress (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Does it matter? There is little Afro-Asiatic on their ydna so the ceiling is probably yes 17.7%. What exactly is the point of the question. Tishkoff is a mixed Hutu/Tutsi sample as well so the exact extent of Afro-Asiatic genetic affiliations of the Tutsi specifically are unknown. They are clearly an originally mixed Nilo-Saharan/Afro-Asiatic population however, and their lactose intolerance and solidifies their link. I am willing to concede to stating "a mixed Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan pastoralist" population. Are you okay with that or do you just like arguing on this talk page? Tollsnanak900 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Yes table S1. So the discovermagazine research states that the Tutsi are closer to the Maasai than the Hutu are. The Maasai are a Nilo-Saharan/Afro-Asiatic population. Tishkoff demonstrates the Tutsi have at least 17.7% Afro-Asiatic ancestry. The other references I have cited have demonstrated the instability caused by this identity. What points are you arguing further against the article as it is? Tollsnanak900 (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Have we reached consensus on stating "a mixed Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan pastoralist" group? Then we can tackle the other two points that are spun out.

Of course it matters. Other than the blog, none of the links claim that the Tutsi were originally a mixed Nilo-Saharan+Afro-Asiatic group. The Tishkoff link actually states that the Tutsi are a Bantu group from Rwanda who along with the Hutu over the centuries assimilated some Cushitic peoples. She doesn't say that the Tutsi-Hima themselves were Cushitic peoples. Here it is again: "Nilo-Saharan and Cushitic speakers from the Sudan, Kenya and Tanzania, as well as some of the Bantu speakers from Kenya, Tanzania and Rwanda (Hutu/Tutsi) constitute another cluster (purple), reflecting linguistic evidence for gene flow amongst these populations over the past ~5,000 years (27, 28)." And here is what the authors write about the Afro-Asiatic groups that did not mix greatly with Bantu or Nilotic populations: "Another geographically contiguous cluster extends across Northern Africa (blue) into Mali (the Dogon), Ethiopia and northern Kenya. With the exception of the Dogon, these populations speak an Afroasiatic language." In short, they constitute an altogether separate cluster. You therefore can't claim in the text that "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". Middayexpress (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you being disingenuous? Did you look at the other references regarding the conflict in the Great Lakes? Tutsis are pastoralists, Hutus were agriculturalists. Nilo-Saharan/Afro-Asiatic groups are pastoralists, the Bantu migration was largely Agriculturalist. We even have a link here regarding the Pastoralism of the Herero a mixed Afro-Asiatic/Bantu group in South Africa. The DNA supports an Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan mixed population of the Tutsi. The oral history and conflicts in the region, well-referenced by over 4 references note the migration of the Tutsi. WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING? It is very unclear. Tollsnanak900 (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read the discover research if it is unclear to you how a population can absorb significant Bantu mixture and still retain their historical identity with a non-Bantu (Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan mixed group). How they can SPEAK a Bantu language and be predominately Bantu but still retain a non-BANTU CULTURAL and GENETIC identity. Are you not understanding what I am saying or do I have to make it clear? Are you disputing the other references regarding the instability in the Great Lakes region due to the pastoralist Tutsi/Hima/Anyakole presence???? Tollsnanak900 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

ALL THE REFERENCES SUPPORT THAT SECTION. You have given ZERO references disputing them. The DNA helps indicate the genetic affiliation that may have been lost. The history and conflicts in the references support the DNA. I can also give more links regarding the PASTORALIST culture of the Tutsi versus the Hutu, the PASTORALIST history of the Nilo-Saharans and Afro-Asiatics in the region, the AGRICULTURALIST culture of the Bantu migrants and add dozens of more references if you would like. But why should I? You have presented ZERO references disputing this. This is looking like a waste of time to me. Tollsnanak900 (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC) I have provided NUMEROUS references and you have provided NONE.
 * Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for Consensus on Genetic Affiliations of Tutsi and Role in Instability in Great Lakes Region-Please Do Not Make Changes to This Section of the Article Until Consensus Met
Can we reach consensus as to changing it to mixed Nilo-Saharan/Afro-Asiatic (YOU HAVE GIVEN NO EVIDENCE DISPUTING THIS; I HAVE GIVEN DNA STUDIES SUPPORTING THIS) pastoralist (NUMEROUS REFERENCES GIVEN; YOU HAVE GIVEN NONE DISPUTING THIS) group that has caused instability in the Great Lakes region (NUMEROUS REFERENCES GIVEN; YOU HAVE GIVEN NONE DISPUTING THIS). Tollsnanak900 (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC) I can give dozens of references as to each of these points as necessary. Tollsnanak900 (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Keeping the wording as is in the article but adding "mixed Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan" to replace "Afro-Asiatic". Can we reach consensus on this? Please indicate point by point what you dispute and provide references if you do not want to give consensus on this. Tollsnanak900 (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My main issue is the follow wiki statement, which the studies don't support: "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"
 * Yes, the Tutsis are pastoralists. The question is, are they "historically Afro-Asiatic communities" as also claimed? None of the DNA links above support this. One explicitly states that they are of Bantu origin with some Afro-Asiatic admixture, and the blog says that they are of Nilotic origin with some Afro-Asiatic admixture. Based on this, the most that can be said is that the Tutsi have some Afro-Asiatic admixture. It can't be asserted that they are of Afro-Asiatic origin, only later adopted Bantu languages, etc. Middayexpress (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The references as to the Great Lakes Conflicts (the books not the DNA articles) indicate the prior non-Bantu origins of the Tutsi as the primary cause of the conflicts. If you can figure out a more precise way to parse out the DNA evidence versus the historical issues please do. But the three separate issues are well supported: (1) the Tutsis have Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan mixture that is MORE than the Hutus and groups them closer to the Maasai (also a pastoralist mixed Afro-asiatic/Nilo-Saharan group) MORE than the Hutus; (2) The Tutsis claim non-Bantu origins through oral history and migration history and have retained non-Bantu cultural practices such as pastoralism, cattle-centred culture and kingship/feudalism practices (which are Nilo-Saharan/Afro-Asiatic practices and NOT Bantu) that the Hutus DID NOT; and (3)There has been significant conflict in the Great Lakes region due to Tutsi (pastoralist) v. Bantu (agriculturalist) cultural and political attempts for dominance.

If you can write out a sentence that parses out these three issues if you do not think they are in identity do so. But you have included no evidence for REMOVING ALL OF THE INFORMATION AT ONCE. Am I missing an argument you are making? Tollsnanak900 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC) I have focused on Rwanda (Hutu/Tutsi) because that is the clearest info but if you note my references are also to the conflicts in Uganda and elsewhere with the Hima/Anyakole. If you can kindly look at those references (they are also on googlebooks) and then get back with your arguments. As I said I can give dozens of references for each of the points above (especially #2 and #3) if you would like. Please let me know if you would like. Tollsnanak900 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am more than willing to have three separate sentences on each of these issues if your concern is that they are not issues in identity. If you can propose three sentences that parses that out please do. Tollsnanak900 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As I have continuously stated I am more than willing to concede : "a mixed Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan" pastoralist group to replace "a Afro-Asiatic" pastoralist group. All evidence points to the Tutsi originally being a mixed Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan group such as the Maasai: the DNA, the history, the conflicts, the pastoralism. It is difficult to parse out whether they SPOKE Nilo-SAharan or Afro-Asiatic originally but it does not really matter if we can agree to the sentence: "a mixed Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan" group. Is your issue then with it just stating "Afro-Asiatic"? I am willing to concede as I have stated repeatedly a "mixed Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan" group. Tollsnanak900 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not making any argument. I'm pointing out that your wiki text on the Tutsi-Hima is not supported by the DNA links you cited. As for the books, only one indicates a page number, and it too doesn't . Stating that the Tutsi are a "mixed Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan" may be something of an overstatement since as you indicated Tishkoff assigns only 17% or so of their ancestry to the Afro-Asiatic cluster. How about statement 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"? Middayexpress (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Or are you arguing that the Tutsi were wholly Nilo-Saharan and the Afro-Asiatic mixture is common to the Tutsis and Hutus just like the Afro-Asiatic mixture in other parts of Southeast Africa? Are you thus arguing it should only say "a Nilo-Saharan" pastoralist group? Please clarify your specific argument. I am sorry you are not being clear even though I have presented very clear guidelines as to the three points the wiki text presents. I have parsed the sentence into the three points it is making and requested you to clarify what you dispute. If you just do not want to make the effort in understanding what I am presenting, please let me know so others can be brought into this conversation. Otherwise this is just a waste of time trying to explain this to you. You arguments are not clear. Do you want more references? Are the references not clear? Which specific references are you disputing? Please do not make general arguments on a specific issue. Tollsnanak900 (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Please see below for the spin-out of this discussion for point by point issue for the sentence. Tollsnanak900 (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

=="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==

"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)


 * (1)"Remaining ethno-cultural diversity following the Bantu migration"

Is there debate as to whether there is remaining diversity in the Great Lakes region following the Bantu migration? Tollsnanak900 (talk)

Is there debate that there is violence in the Great Lakes region between the groups in question (Tutsi-Hima-Anyakole v. Bantu)?Tollsnanak900 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (2)"is also arguably the trigger for much of the violence in the Great Lakes region,"


 * (3)"with pastoralist and historically Afro-Asiatic communities such as the Tutsi, Banyankole,and Hima (who only later adopted Bantu languages)"

Is there a debate that the Tutsi-Banyankole-Hima are Pastoralist, historically Afro-Asiatic and later adopted Bantu languages (I AM WILLING TO CONCEDE TO CHANGING IT TO 'HISTORICALLY AFRO-ASIATIC/NILO-SAHARAN' due to the fact that the evidence shows a mixed population between Nilo-Saharan/Afro-Asiatic and there is no direct evidence as to what language they spoke before turning to Bantu languages Tollsnanak900 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * (4) "in historical conflict over the struggle for political representation and land with the later Bantu migrants in the region."

Is there a debate as to the historical conflict for political representation and land between the Tutsi-Hima-Anyakole and Bantu migrants (Hutu, Buganda and others) in the region? Tollsnanak900 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)

Okay so to be clear you would rather make general arguments for specific points LOL. Whatever. Anyways so your issue is specifically with the identity of the Tutsi, that is point 3) only to be clear? You do not have an issue with parts 1), 2) or 4) of the sentence, just to clarify so we can narrow the discussion:


 * (3)"with pastoralist and historically Afro-Asiatic communities such as the Tutsi, Banyankole,and Hima (who only later adopted Bantu languages)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If so I am willing to concede to what you have stated, except that the Tutsi-Hima-Anyakole do NOT hold that they originally spoke the language but rather that they are from Afro-Asiatic or Nilo-Saharan ethnic origins. I do not wish to quibble on the point if we are reaching consensus, so am willing to replace *(3)"with pastoralist and historically Afro-Asiatic communities such as the Tutsi, Banyankole,and Hima (who only later adopted Bantu languages)" with something we can concede to, and keep the references as to the DNA. perhaps we can state

"with pastoralist (most probably Nilo-Saharan) non-Bantu communities such as the Tutsi, Banyankole, and Hima (who only later adopted Bantu languages)" and then in the footnote indicate what you have stated about the genetic affiliations being unclear. Is that okay? Can we reach consensus on this? Tollsnanak900 (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I mean I 8think* we can both agree on the historically non-Bantu origins of the Tutsi based on the DNA references and historical references I have provided I think where you and I differ on is whether they are originally Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan, a mixed population between the two or otherwise. Am I stating our disagreement correctly? I am more than willing to concede that the evidence points to the Tutsi being probably Nilo-Saharan in origin with a footnote towards their Afro-Asiatic genetic affiliations as well. Is that something you would be comfortable with? What I am NOT willing to concede is that the Tutsi are of originally Bantu origin and identical to the Hutu (although they are obviously today predominately Bantu in DNA and they speak a Bantu language in common with the Hutu). Tollsnanak900 (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Although there has been much sensitivity to the issue due to the conflicts in the Great Lakes especially after the Rwandan Genocide, all the references I have provided and the DNA evidence indicate a differing genesis of the Tutsi and Hutu, although the exact ethnic makeup of the original Tutsi-Hima-Anyakole peoples as you stated is inconclusive. There has been much misinformation on this issue after the genocide, the Tutsi wiki page is a case in point but if we can agree on the non-Bantu element to the Tutsi-Hima-Anyakole and retained cultural non-Bantu elements here that can end this discussion now. The footnote can indicate the inconclusive affiliations with a very short note towards the limited Afro-Asiatic affiliations found by Tishkoff. Tollsnanak900 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

So to be clear what I am proposing is changing "Afro-Asiatic" to "probably Nilo-Saharan" leaving all the references intact and the rest of the section intact and then creating a footnote along the lines of "Although the precise ethnic origins of the Tutsi, Hima and Anyakole are unclear and they currently speak Bantu languages, they have been differentiated from surrounding Bantu communities through DNA evidence demonstrating a substantial Nilo-Saharan component (and relatively limited Afro-Asiatic gene flow) that clusters them most closely with other Nilo-Saharan-speaking pastoralists in Southeast Africa such as the Maasai. This, in addition to the communities' oral histories indicating origins to the north, and the presence of significant non-Bantu ethno-cultural elements such as cattle-centered socio-cultural practices, increased lactose intolerance and feudal economic practices support the DNA evidence indicating the non-Bantu cultural genesis of the Tutsi, Hima and Anyakole in the Great Lakes region. As a result, although the Tutsi, Hima and Anyakole all share significant genetic and linguistic relationships to their surrounding Bantu communities, this is probably due to substantial gene flow from the Bantu groups and subsequent abandonment of their original non-Bantu languages."

As this is what the discover DNA study specifically argues, and is supported by the other references as to the conflict in the region as well. The Afro-Asiatic issue is tangential to this, the main point is the non-Bantu/agriculturalist pastoralist element othe Tutsi-Hima-Anyakole and its contribution to much of the conflict in the Great Lakes region. Would the replaced words and the footnote I proposed above be comfortable to you? Tollsnanak900 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Is that okay? Tollsnanak900 (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello this is Tollsnanak900, I had to change my username as I lost my previous password. The Luis reference in the article further supports the differentiation between the Tutsi and Hutu in terms of their Nilo-Saharan ancestry:

Luis, J. R.; et al. (2004). "The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations". American Journal of Human Genetics 74 (3): 532–544. doi:10.1086/382286. PMC 1182266. . (Errata) Also available here: http://volgagermanbrit.us/documents/AJHG_2004_v74_p000_0130.pdf Luis found: Tutsi 14.9%B, Hutu 4.3%B, Hutu 94.2%E, Tutsi 85.1% E This supports the discoverblog article which shows the Tutsi clustering much closer to the Masaai (a mixed Afro-Asiatic/Nilo-Saharan population that speaks aNilo-Saharan language) we can just point to this DNA study instead which had similar results for the yDNA. Again, as the mtDNA evidence we have was a mixed Hutu/Tutsi sample, I am willing to concede that the greater Afro-Asiatic affiliation of the Tutsi has not yet been proven as although the mtDNA shows 18% Afro-Asiatic mixture in the mixed Hutu/Tutsi sample, it is not clear whether Tutsi have more of it than the Hutu. The Tutsi do however have significantly more Nilo-Saharan as the Luis study shows so I am willing to concede to what I have already set above in further light of the Luis study (which had already been referenced in the article in the first place!). I have been searching for any genetic studies of the Tutsi alone for their mtDNA or autosomal but I could not find any. If you do, please let me know. Until then I would like to reach consensus on my earlier proposal towards replacing "Afro-Asiatic" with "probably Nilo-Saharan" and then adding a footnote clarifying the genetic studies and leaving the rest of the section and footnotes intact. Thank you. Andajara120000 (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC) (formerly Tollsnanak900 as I lost my password- see my talk page where I have noted I am the same person).

Here is another good reference as to the issue that can be incorporated into the article once consensus is met: Filip Reyntjens, "War in the Great Lakes Region," in Africa in World Politics: Engaging in a Changing Global Order. Boulder, Co: Westview Press, 2013, pp. 255-284. Andajara120000 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Consensus Met Regarding Tutsi/Hima/Banyankole
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)(I am tollsnanak, please see my talk page)

Bantu Population Figures (Spinned Out)
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)

Yes it is possible that they would have doubled in 10 years. Do you not know the growth rate of populations? Nurse was probably also basing it on outdated figures. STOP DOING ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

Are you refuting these population figures or are you just doing original research?

There is no reference as there has been no book about Bantu Africa spefically, but estimates can be made from BANTU POPULATION FIGURES Population of SADC  - 277 million Population of EAC [11] - over 140 million ECCAS [12] -138.6 million SADC 277 million + EAC 150 million + ECCAS 131 million, removing Chad and Central African Republic(in ECCAS) Mauritius and Seychelles (in SADC), overlap of Bantu states (between ECCAS, SADC and EAC) and taking into account non-Bantu populations in South Africa, Namibia, Kenya, Uganda and elsewhere, adds up to over 400 million people.

SADC= Angola Botswana,Democratic Republic of the Congo – since 8 September 1997,Lesotho,Malawi, Mauritius – since 28 August 1995 Mozambique,Namibia – since 31 March 1990 (since independence),Seychelles – also previously been a member of SADC from 8 September 1997 until 1 July 2004 then joined again in 2008.,South Africa – since 30 August 1994,Swaziland,Tanzania,Zambia,Zimbabwe EAC=Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi ECCAS=Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Sao Tomé and Principe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There are three references for the 400 million figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I have edited this out into the three major points: bantu population totals, Tutsi genetic affiliations and bantu homogeneity. this should make it easier to edit within each section. If there are still unresolved questions let me know but these three seem key. Earlier discussions have been retained outside the spin-offs. Tollsnanak900 (talk)

There is no "Bantu Alliance" but there are three supra-regional groups: the SADC and EAC and ECCAS that make up the Bantu countries per the linguistic map. I can go and provide references for all 19 predominately bantu countries and the 4 islands as well. Let me know what you think is best. But the three organizations, removing overlap and accounting for non-Bantu groups is sufficient. If we have a page on Bantu peoples there should be an estimation as to their population. If there is an easier way let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am attempting to organize it PER YOUR REQUEST but it is hard to do so with three people editing at once. UNESCO is in regards to ECCAS, I have also given links to an article about the EAC and a link to the population figures for SADC. I have explained it very clearly to you here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There I have organized it well for you guys. I am happy to talk these issues out, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Bantu Relative Homogeneity (Spinned Out)
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)

Is this still in question or is it resolved per the earlier discussion regarding the first line on the article? Bantu peoples is used as a general label for the 300–600 ethnically and linguistically related ethnic groups in Africa [4] [5] who speak Bantu languages.[6]

I think the references given in the earlier discussion on this page resolve this issue pretty clearly (especially Salas) but please let me know if otherwise.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC385086/

Am J Hum Genet. 2002 November; 71(5): 1082–1111.

Published online 2002 October 22.

The Making of the African mtDNA Landscape

Antonio Salas,1,2,3 Martin Richards,2 Tomás De la Fe,1 María-Victoria Lareu,1 Beatriz Sobrino,1 Paula Sánchez-Diz,1 Vincent Macaulay,3 and Ángel Carracedo1

Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►

"

Several mtDNA markers have been proposed as signals of Bantu dispersals, although often in the absence of any southern Bantu data. Bandelt et al. (1995) and Chen et al. (1995) suggested haplogroup L1a, part of which (defined by a 9-bp intergenic deletion) was confirmed as an important eastern Bantu marker by Soodyall et al. (1996). Watson et al. (1997) similarly proposed a subset of haplogroup L3b. Subsequently, Alves-Silva et al. (2000) and Bandelt et al. (2001) have proposed (on the basis of analyses of Brazilian mtDNA data) that fragments of haplogroups L2, L3e, and L1e may also be important Bantu mtDNA markers. Bandelt and Forster (1997) highlighted the Khoisan mtDNA pool, which primarily includes members of the ancient haplogroups L1d and L1k, suggesting that extant San groups represent a small and recent splinter from a widespread and ancient Khoisan population (see also Soodyall and Jenkins 1992; Soodyall 1993). (A similar relationship between the Mandenka and the wider West African mtDNA pool was pointed out by Graven et al. 1995.) Pereira et al. (2001) focused specifically on southeastern African Bantu-speaking populations. They found reduced diversity, in comparison with East and West Africans, and confirmed the roles of L1a (both with and without the 9-bp intergenic deletion), L3b, and L3e in the Bantu dispersals. They also highlighted the important role of L2a and estimated a Khoisan assimilation rate in southeast Bantu speakers of ~5% (L1d). Using L2a, they estimated a founder time of 4,600–16,500 years ago." "

One particular widespread derived subclade, E3a, has been implicated in the Bantu expansion; it has rather little diversity and forms the majority of lineages in Central and southern African Bantu-speaking samples (Scozzari et al. 1999; Underhill et al. 2001). This subclade occurs at a frequency of ~63% in the southern African Bantu speakers of Underhill et al. (2000), with one predominant haplotype and its one-step derivative (Underhill et al. 2001). These two haplotypes (hts 24 and 22 in the work of Underhill et al. [2001] and Cruciani et al. [2002]) occur at ~84% in south Cameroon (Cruciani et al. 2002). Both haplotypes are widespread in West and Central Africa, but this evidence is clearly consistent with a Cameroon origin for southern African Bantu speakers. A minor E3a type also present in southern African Bantu speakers (ht 27) occurs at ~9% in Cameroon and is almost absent in other African groups sampled, so the case for a south Cameroon origin is even stronger in this case." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As these are for southeastern Bantu groups which have a great degree of admixture and are still homogeneous as compared to the other Bantu groups I think it is pretty clear but please let me know if I am missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for Consensus on Bantu Relative Homogeneity-Please Do Not Make Changes to This Section of the Article Until Consensus Met
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)

Here is a more recent 2012 study further demonstrating the relative homogeneity of Bantu groups: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385717/

Proc Biol Sci. 2012 August 22; 279(1741): 3256–3263.

Published online 2012 May 23. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0318

Bringing together linguistic and genetic evidence to test the Bantu expansion

Cesare de Filippo,1,2,* Koen Bostoen,3,4,5 Mark Stoneking,2 and Brigitte Pakendorf1,†

"Our comparison of the genetic distances among Bantu populations with those of Bantu versus all other linguistic and ethnic groups (figure 3) indicates that even geographically distant Bantu-speaking populations are closely related to each other, as expected with demic diffusion, and argues against a major role for language shift in the Bantu expansion.

The other African ethnolinguistic groups, on the other hand, do not show a similar degree of genetic proximity between populations regardless of the geographical distance separating them (see electronic supplementary material, figures S4–S6). This probably reflects complex demographic histories represented by various events of demic diffusion, language shift and/or language/population contact with other groups. Given that these represent much older phylogenetic units than the relatively young Bantu language family, there has been more time for such demographic events to obscure signals of relationship in these phyla than in the Bantu family."

"populations alone, and among Bantu versus any of the other major African linguistic phyla and Pygmies. The distributions of genetic distances among all Bantu populations are significantly lower than those between Bantu and any of the other major linguistic phyla for all genetic markers (all MWU tests with one tail p < 10−9), consistent with a demic diffusion. Different patterns were observed when this approach was applied to the other linguistic phyla for all markers, with some exceptions (see electronic supplementary material, figures S4–S6). "

"When population diversity levels were calculated without taking into account heterogeneity in population size, no significant trends for all genetic markers were observed as a function of distance from the Bantu homeland. In contrast, after correcting for sample size effects, mtDNA and Y-chromosomal haplotype diversity decreased significantly with increasing distance from the Bantu homeland, while expected heterozygosity based on autosomal loci did not show any significant pattern (figure 4). These reductions of genetic diversity as a function of geographical distance from the homeland further supports the demic diffusion of Bantu-speaking people. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tollsnanak900 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A good reference for points for the history to add
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)

Sock puppet edits
Please see 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Notable People in Infobox
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)
 * 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)

CfD nomination of Category:Bantu people
Category:Bantu people has been nominated for. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Helen Online  10:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links 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)


 * 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)

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

Somalia chart population info
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)