The Bantustans of Namibia

African countries that we see today, most of them have sprung out of the colonial era after battling against the imperial powers. Hence, the concept of countries that are present in Africa differs from what the traditional African powers inhabited. There are much more to Africa than the 54 names approved by the United Nations, entities that are more than just nation-states, territories that are struggling to get a sovereign status, and minor dependencies and European enclaves that are yet to see the light of independence. One such political entity is the Bantustan. 

Unlike the other -stans, Bantustan is neither a nation nor a historic region, nor it has anything to do with Islam or Muslims. It's a highly misleading suffix as -stan is an Islamic phrase to denote a land and its natives (except in the case of Pakistan). An entity that was entirely based on apartheid and racism, Bantustan was created to separate out the white and non-white populations in today's Namibia and South Africa. But this post is to talk about those areas that are ethnically African, but didn't get a sovereign status due to various reasons. 

These Bantustans were recognised only by South Africa and existed for a good period of time till the 1990s and was an attempt by Europeans to whitewash Bantu lands. Their attempt of racially segregating native Africans into 'homelands' or 'reserves' follows a similar pattern that they previously did in other colonies, such as India. With each new European establishment beginning from the 17th century, Indian settlements such as Calcutta, Madras and Bombay were segregated between two sections - White Town and Native or Black Town. Such racist segregation was extended further into a more chaotic mannerism in southern Africa and a series of homelands were laid out. Prior to 1994, these Bantustans were added into the neighbouring provinces of both countries. 

To understand Bantustan's concept, one must adhere to the fact that it was the European idea to assume a certain territory of a certain tribe into a certain 'country', for the ease of their administration. As per the European boundaries, today's southern Africa is composed of the following countries, at present: 

1. Namibia
2. Botswana
3. South Africa
4. Eswatini
5. Lesotho

But if we have to consider an ethnographic map of Africa, the following would be the tribes located in this region: 

1. Nama
2. Herero
3. Tawana
4. Ngwaketse
5. Kwena
6. Ngwato
7. Ngatla
8. Ndebele
9. Swazi
10. Sotho
11. Zulu
12. Xosa
13. Khoekhoe (including sub-groups such as !Ora, !Gona, Xiri, ǂNūkhoe etc.)
14. Akrikaner (formed not before the 18th-19th centuries)

This does not necessarily mean there would have been sovereign states, as the concept of boundaries and countries is a European invention. The mere existence of maps and other cartographic features is European based and the empires and kingdoms in the non-European world had varying political-administrative structures. Even the name Africa exists only since the Hellenistic and Roman era, the traditional indigenous being spelt as Alkebulan. Experts suggest other names of the continent as Ortigia, Corphye, Libya and Ethiopia, the last two being prominent on almost every post-medieval map. This theory is although disputed as another set of historians predate the word 'Africa' much before the arrival of the Greeks and Romans. 

The indigenous writing script of the South African languages was essentially syllabograms comprised of geometric patterns, symmetrical and asymmetrical called (or at least sounded as) Isibheque Sohlamvu or Ditema tsa Dinoko. In a nutshell, the way Europeans pronounce African entities is totally different from how the indigenous originally pronounced them; understandable as European maps are essentially filled with improper spellings and accents of indigenous languages, for the sake of their convenience and colonisation. The newly adopted Roman writing system has widely washed away the true essence of indigenous culture, though a considerable number of dedicated groups are trying their best to preserve the original form. 

There is no definite answer as to what Africa would have been if never colonised, as the definitions of 'continent', 'country' and even 'colonisation' are subjective. The non-European world thrived on trade and commerce and the exchange of ideas and cultures spread through travel routes, something that can be concretely considered as a common feature in all these cultures. A common notion is to believe that Africa would have been a labyrinth of hundreds of sub-cultures and tribes, which doesn't sound rationally correct. In any case, the result of European cartography of non-European (and to some extent, even certain European) entities is the reason for the ongoing chaos among various countries. There are several secessionist demands creating a violent jigsaw of autonomous entities, the most popular being the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (or Western Sahara) and Somaliland, both internationally unrecognised. 

Shifting the focus to the European cartography of southern Africa, particularly the nations of South Africa, Eswatini, Lesotho and Namibia,; the 16th century maps slyly mentions the term Nova Africæ Extensio. Approaching the 17th century, names such as Taxa Regnum, Beniama and Mahambannar are to be seen. A series of Latin (mostly Portuguese) names of coastal ports with obsolete names such as Agoada da Saldaha, Alombada das Arcas, P. de S. Lucia, Tierra do Natal, Milangano etc. could be seen spread out from Namibia to Eswatini on a 1623-dated map by Jodocus Hondius. This was followed by the appearance of Monomotapa (Portuguese misspelling for Mwene we Mutapa), a predecessor to modern Zimbabwe, Zambia and parts of South Africa. 

The 17th-century maps of Africa from a European perspective were highly racist and excessive usage of misspellings and misleading terms could be seen, the most common being, Cafrerie. The unfortunate plight of African maps continued with the usage of furthermore racial slang, the Hottentots being to denote the western part of South Africa and southern Namibia. Almost no significant changes were to be seen even on the 19th-century maps of southern Africa although heavy trade routes were well-developed, both African and non-African. European names replaced traditional ones and places such as St. Helen's Bay, Cape Town, Cape of Good Hope, Pt. of Natal etc. became to be the new definition of colonial Africa. 

The misspellings increased although the mention of indigenous tribes was made on 19th-century maps. Namaquas, Bosjesmans, Koranas, Tamboukis, Mambouquas etc. are a few of the many such names. Reaching the end of the 19th-century, proper mapping and boundaries were given to certain south African regions, although the terms Hottentots and Kafirland were still in use. The general subdivisions of southern Africa at the end of the 19th-century were as follows: 

1. Damara (indefinite boundary)
2. Great Namaqua Land (indefinite boundary)
3. Cape Colony
4. West Griqualand
5. Orange Free State
6. Natal
7. Transkei
8. Kafirland
9. Zulu Land
10. Transvaal

While the British colony (formerly Dutch) was fully formed at Cape Colony (and others), the tribes of Zemba, Nama, Herero, Naro, Kwanyama, Kwangali etc. were later grouped by the Germans as Deutsch-Südwestafrika or the German South-West Africa. This name was continued till 1915 when the administration was taken over by the government of South Africa (which was still a British colony back then) till 1990. Walvis Bay and the Penguin Islands were handed over to the Namibian government in 1994. In between the 20th century racial politics, arose the various Bantustans, soon to be scrapped out. The following map lists the various Bantustans of today's Namibia that existed till 1994 after which its legitimacy was declared null and void.