Talk:Bantustan

[Untitled]

Please note: The first paragraph of this entry has been tampered with by a white racist who is as poor in basic writing skills as he is biased. Someone from Wikipedia should clean up that section as soon as possible. Thank you. (--202.156.13.11 (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC))

"...although the parallel is not exact."

Please explain the relationship between American Indian reservations and Bantustans in more detail. The statement that the correlation is erroneous requires more explanation and a source. --65.44.114.33 (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the entire concept of Bantustans was based on the American Indian reservation system and the rest of apartheid on the American Segregation. Hendrik Verwoerd had spent time in the US before WWII. This was written in some biography of the man, but I can't remember the exact source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.171.254 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

An important distinction to keep in mind is that whereas the Black people of South Africa are the vast majority, Native Americans in the United States are not, they make up less the 1% of the population. The US government policy designed to end the reservation system, known as "termination" was extremely unpopular among the Native Americans who realized that with there population and resources they would be quickly crowded out of their former lands and would essentially cease to exist as a people. In fact one tribe, the Menominee, after being terminated, fought in the courts to get their land back and to have the reservation reinstated which was successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.216.115 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

-stan

Where does the -stan come from? Is it just an analogy with Pakistan, Afghanistan,...? -- Error 01:55, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Was KwaZulu ever really a Bantustan ? I know the government wanted it, but I thought Buthelezi stonewalled them and never accepted the designation ? Wizzy 11:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bantustan was never an official term for the homelands, it was a term created by the policy's opponents in order to point out how ridiculous the claim of their independant truly was. In this regard the use of the term Bantustan with the "-stan" reminds the reader of the various Soviet satellites, which though nominally independant USSR countries, were quite obviously and blatantly Russian puppets, and so the reality that the Homelands were merely puppet states of the Apartheid govt is revealed to the reader. Impi 00:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As the original question was never answer, and the article wrongly calls it a "Sanskrit" word, I shall attempt to answer. The -stan is an Iranian, specifically Persian, suffix, as it appears in the names of countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Tajikistan. the Sanskrit equivalent would be -sthan, which is used for naming places such as Rajasthan. The Skt. -sthan is, however, not as productive as the Persian one. Of course, both -stan and -sthan have solid Indo-European roots, going to a *-st- root which also appears in English words "stay" and "stand" as well as many other Indo-European languages. So, specifically speaking, the text should be ammended to say (-stan, meaning "place", in Persian)...--Khodadad (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Diplomatic recognition

The article says of the Bantustans "However, none of them received recognition from the outside world".

I've heard accusations that certain nations (including Israel and Taiwan) granted diplomatic recognition to the Bantustans. Does anyone have reliable sources on this matter? Andjam 15:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Israel and Taiwan had trade relations with at least one of the Bantustans, Bophuthatswana, which was allowed to open a trade office in Tel Aviv - but this didn't constitute diplomatic recognition. -- ChrisO 18:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is not recognistion, but should the fact that these Trade Relations existed (as far as im aware Israel at lest had a delgation from Bop in Israel) be mentioned? --Scottykira (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Botswana

I'm going to re-revert this. Botswana is often confused with Bophutatswana, and was also historically associated with Lesotho and Swaziland. Please argue here if you feel strongly about it. Thanks Guinnog 00:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more misleading to include Botswana in the list. It's a neighbouring country, not an enclave. -- ChrisO 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Historically it's been just as dependent on SA over the years. Plus the connon confusion above. Guinnog 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Spanish article

The article from the Spanish wiki is great. Perhaps someone that speaks Spanish well can translate parts of it and expand this one.

Hmmm ... Actually, I was the major editor of that article (es:Bantustán). I could try doing what you suggest. Anagnorisis 05:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed section bashing Israel

It was exclusively targeting Israel and was exclusively based on a quote by John Dugard. Surely I would expect a South African to use SA expressions, but that does not make it notable, other than for propaganda purposes. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you "expect" an Israeli political scientist and former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem who is not South African to use the same term?[1]Homey 01:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Israeli internal political fighting is fierce, and it is a democracy with free press. But it is disingenuous to use such quotations in order to bash the State of Israel, in this case exclusively. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Having just read it, I don't think it necessarily was "bashing Israel", though I would say it was too long and perhaps not general enough. The contemporary usage certainly needs to be mentioned and it's not satisfactory to remove that section entirely. I've rewritten it and restored it to the article - see what you think. -- ChrisO 07:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ChrisO, but this is not better. Here is what's wrong with that section:

1. it exclusively singles out Israel. Is this the only case of Bantustans other than apartheid SA on the planet?
2. See Israel and the United Nations. The pre-reform UNHCR is not a WP:RS.
3. it is titled Usage in non-South African contexts. So far I can see a single context - anti-Israel propaganda, and it does not even get rebuked.
4. it does not mention that John Dugard is South African lawyer.
5. That link is broken. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, the UNHCR is headed by former Canadian Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour. You can't dismiss UN reports just because of Israel's position on UN or just because John Bolton hates the UN. Government reports and reports by international governmental organizations such as the UN are WP:RS. Homey 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If the link is broken replace it with a non-hyperlink citation. Not all sources have to be on the internet. Homey 12:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I don't believe you are this naive, Homey. "The Human Rights Council will replace the Commission on Human Rights, which will be formally abolished on 16 June 2006." [2]

Since some of my points were addressed, I made a compromise. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you took out the Canadian reference. Homey 04:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Which one? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Some people may compare it to Israel, but some of the same people also compare Israel to Nazism, it is uterly unencyclopedic. Bantustan only exists in the South African context, it is obvious that one would not apply it to an entirely different region for neutral reasons.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You and Humus seriously misunderstand the point of this section. We aren't in the business of determining whether the "Bantustan" tag is justified - all we're doing is documenting how it's been used. That is encyclopedic by definition. Presenting a POV as fact could be considered propangandistic. Describing a particular POV neutrally isn't. In fact, doing this is explicitly required by WP:NPOV.

The fact that the term "Bantustan" is used in relation to Israel is indisputable, whether or not you agree with it being justifiable. Google returns over 72,000 results on the two terms, Google Books finds 91 books using the terms (including an entire book called "Bantustan Gaza" from 1985) and Google News retrieves 16 press articles using the terms in the last month alone. The use of the term is certainly controversial but the fact that it has been widely used in the first place cannot reasonably be disputed. If you are deleting a neutral statement of fact because you dislike the subject matter, that's of course a violation of the NPOV policy. Don't do it. And frankly, as an administrator Humus should know better. -- ChrisO 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not arguing that the comparison hasn't been made, or even that it isn't common. We are arguing that the section is completly unencyclopedic and needlessly inflammatory. It would be one thing to make the case that the presentation of the accusation that "Israel is enacting a policy of forced segregation" is widely believed to the point that it is notable enough for an encylopedia, however it is an entirely different thing to take a word completely out of its context and apply it Israel's policies. The comparison that Palestinian refugee camps are equivalent to Nazi death camps is at the very least as common a comparison. Including a section in the holocaust article about its comparison to Israel's policies is also very similar to the section in this article. It is obvious that none of the aformentioned examples belong in anancyclopedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, let me emphasize that documenting this widespread usage does not in any way imply agreement with it. We aren't here to include only information that you agree with - see in particular WP:NPOV#Writing for the "enemy" and WP:NPOV#Morally offensive views. I'm sure you'd object if, for instance, a holocaust denier deleted any referenced material on the holocaust because he disagreed with it. You haven't bothered to explain how a neutral description of a controversial POV is somehow "unencyclopedic." You are deleting valid, referenced, neutrally worded content for patently POV reasons. This is considered vandalism, and I've formally warned you on your user page. Don't do it, or you are likely to find yourself being blocked. -- ChrisO 09:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not appreciate threats, especially fallacious ones, I provided ample reasoning for the removal on the talk page, so lets not pretend that you were just "removing vandalism", if you blocked me for removing a pov passage from an article that you were so involved with, you could expect to see a new section on the AN/I. I find your "warning" an obvious attempt of intimidation with your administrator status, and not to mention extremely uncivil.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a warning against engaging in POV-driven deletions - it's something I've seen more than enough of in the many Balkans-related articles I've edited. It's your personal POV that the comparison is unfair and unjustified. It's other people's personal POV that the comparison is fair and accurate. We aren't in the business of ruling in favour of one POV or the other. But we should at least mention the claim, given that it's one that's been made by many different mainstream sources. You don't have to agree with the claim to acknowledge that it exists. If it exists, which it does, and it's widespread enough to be noteworthy, which it is, it should be mentioned. None of this implies acceptance or agreement of the claim. This article doesn't even discuss the rights or wrongs of the claim (and nor should it) - it merely notes that it exists and directs the reader to a more detailed article. You claim that your objection only relates to the comparison with Israel's policies, which is discussed in a single paragraph. Would you care to explain, then, why you deleted the entire section?

You appear to be using the term "encyclopedic" to mean "does not conflict with my POV". I suggest you read WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." Disagreement with a particular POV doesn't entitle you to remove all mention of that POV, any more than (for instance) a Muslim would be justified in deleting mentions of the term "Islamofascism" or a fundamentalist Christian deleting references to "evolution". Doing so is, in effect, stating that no other POVs but your own may be acknowledged. There's not many things that violate WP:NPOV more starkly than that. -- ChrisO 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I made it clear what I meant by unencyclopedic, and it clearly had nothing to do with my pov. When someone compares Israel's policies to the holocaust what they mean is that Israel is systematically and deliberatly killing Palestinains, Although I do not think that they are doing that, if the belief was widespread enough, it would be encyclopedic to say "Many individuals and organizations have accused Israel of engaging in an campaign of systemetic killings of innocent Palestinians". However, It would not be encyclopedic to state "Many individuals and organizations have accused Israel of launching a holocaust against the Palestinains". The reason is because "holocaust" is used for a specific context and to take it outside that context and emotively apply it to the policies of another nation is extremely inflammatory and unnecessary. Similarly when someone states that a Palestinain state would be another Bantustan, they are really accusing Israel of creating a non-economically viable state which in reality is still heavily dependent on Israel, so it would be encyclopedic to state "Many individuals and organizations have accused Israel of purposely creating a Palestinian state that in reality is not independent or economically viable", but to take the word "Bantustan" which very specifically refers to an aspect of the old White South African regime and apply it to the policies of Israel conjures up emotive memories of Apartheid. That is what I mean by unencyclopedic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. It's not about the status of a Palestinian state - it's about the origins, history and usage of the term "Bantustan". The last section of the article is intended to document that the term has been adopted for a variety of non-South African purposes because it now has so many negatives attached to it. That's an interesting phenomenon, both politically and philologically, which is why it's worth documenting in the first place. You might be interested to know that 40 years ago Bantustans weren't seen in such a negative light outside of SA - I found a contemporary report of Moshe Dayan citing the Bantustan model as an approach that Israel could use for the West Bank. ("Problems of victory divide Israelis", The Times, London, 15 June 1967.) I don't think any politician anywhere in the world would dare to make such a comparison in a positive sense now! -- ChrisO 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I just do not follow your reasoning of why my argument was "irrelevant", you are suggesting that because the negative connotations did not always exist for "Bantustan", it is acceptable to apply the word to present circumstances? I would say that the level of negative connotation did not always exists for "concentration camps" or "holocaust", however when one conjures up the imagery of these words, they are not doing so in the context of when they were not loaded words, they are using them to remind the listener of negative circumstances.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Many concepts acceptable long ago are not acceptable today.
2. Whenever an accusation/offensive is made, the accused side should be given an opportunity to defend itself. Based on WP:RS & NPOV, of course. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant argument again. The section does not present any arguments for or against the usage. It merely notes that the usage exists. WP:RS would only be relevant in this context if someone denied that the term "Bantustan" has ever been used in the context of Israel. You believe that the Bantustan comparison is unfair. Fine - I agree. But the article doesn't discuss the merits of the way that the term is used - pro or con - and nor should it; the arguments for or against are simply not relevant to an article on usage. Please take your arguments, pro and con, to Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Israeli apartheid, rather than trying to insert them into this article. -- ChrisO 02:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

By this logic, why even bother to say that it is widely rejected? In general, I don't think that refuting slanderous accusation is "irrelevant", but I'll make another compromise: remove the text and leave only a ref (per WP:RS and WP:V). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable compromise - thanks. It's simply a case of saying "some people believe X [reference], other people refute X [reference]. For more information on this debate, go to [specific article]." We note the existence of the debate; we don't get into the details, much less trying to "refute a slanderous accusation" (and on that matter, please see your talk page). -- ChrisO 08:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Most often"

User:Jayjg has objected to the statement that outside of SA, the term "has most often been used in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Here's a quick way of verifying that. Googling for the term "Bantustan" returns 162,000 results. "Bantustan -"South Africa"" produces 87,800 results. "Bantustan israel OR israeli" produces 73,800 results. "bantustan "south africa" israel OR israeli" produces 31,200 results. Therefore:

• About 50% of all references to "Bantustan" found by Google relate to South Africa
• About 20% of all references to "Bantustan" relate to both South Africa and Israel
• About 40% of all references to "Bantustan" relate to Israel alone.

I think on that basis it's safe to say that the most common use in a non-South African context relates to Israel. Again, you might not agree with this being fair, but as a fact it's easily provable. -- ChrisO 07:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's ignore the fact that Google usage can often be irrelevant to Wikipedia (since Google tends to find mostly unreliable sources), and focus on the more important issue. What you are saying is that you did some original research, based on some Google searches, and came to the conclusion that the term was "most often" and "frequently" used in relation to Israel. That's an interesting "previously unpublished theory, data, statement, concept, argument, or idea"; it may even be true. However, it is a classic example of original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Please find some reliable source which makes this claim or argument, as we can't go about verifying this with the footnote "According to some Google searches done by Wikipedia editor ChrisO". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Frequently" seems fair on the basis of the Google argument, which I know isn't perfect. --Guinnog 15:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Except for the fact that it is original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You've missed an important point. The output of a database such as Google (or any other database for that matter) isn't original research on my part. It's not me who's totting up the number of hits - it's Google. Nor is it me who's publishing the number of hits - it's Google again. The only reliable source on the number of hits in Google's database is Google itself. And of course the information is verifiable, as anyone can do a Google search using the same queries. WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR are thus amply met. -- ChrisO 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you have missed the point. You've used a dubious tool to do some research, and based on that research come up with a previously unpublished idea, that the term "bantustan" is used "most often" in relation to Israel. That is precisely what WP:NOR prohibits. Please find a reliable source which has published this idea. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, it's definitely OR to say "most often" and "frequently," because without a source, it's a Wikipedia editor's opinion based on looking at one search engine. You would need to find an authoritative source who actually made that claim, and then quote him or her. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept your point on "most often", for the sake of agreement - I don't think it's worth splitting hairs over it. However, I do think we need to note - somewhere, somehow - that the comparison has often been made. Leaving the "often" out implies that the term has been used equally often with regard to Canada, Yugoslavia, Hawaii etc. which doesn't appear to be the case. As it happens, I should be able to do a Lexis-Nexis check tomorrow to get some firmer data and hopefully some authoritative quotes. -- ChrisO 20:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Again "Often" would be OR since you have not provided an actual source that states the comparison "has often been made", you may say it is common sense because of the google search, but that would be almost as bad as me suggesting it is common sense that it is not because I have never heard anyone say it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's why I said I would try to find an authoritative quote. -- ChrisO 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So now we have several instances of non-SA, non-Israeli mentions of bantustan supported by one reference each, compared to 73,000 mentions wrt Israel, but only two of those are referenced here. I think we have policies about not giving equal weight to beliefs of large numbers vs one or two people. Obviously the intent is to insinuate that Israel is just like Canada in this respect. So I will delete all the non-Israel ones unless someone can show that they sufficiently numerically significant to satisfy the "appropriate weight" rule. Fourtildas 06:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Even Colin Powell when interviewed used the term in regards to this situation you guys are discussing: " “You can't have a bunch of little Bantustans or the whole West Bank chopped up into non-coherent, non-contiguous pieces and say this is an acceptable state. -- Colin Powell." http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/33169.htm

Comments from banned editor

(comment from banned editor remove)

You always have the option of abiding by Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA, which you have violated several times in the comment above. Pecher ^Talk 14:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct official Term?

Is Bantustan the correct and official term. I'm getting the impression that this is kind of loaded language by ANC propagandists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.255.246 (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I thought its supposed to be called Homeland! 65.8.53.130 19:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. It is a pejorative term used by critics of Apartheid. The official term was "Homeland". I was wondering why this term is used as the article's title. Does WP policy allow pejoratives to be used as "official" titles of articles? Would changing the title of the main article on, for example, Canada to "Canuckistan" be acceptable? Roger (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well not all of the "bantustans" were for Bantu peoples anyway; consider Bushmanland and Namaland.A Werewolf (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that myself. So is it appropriate to use the term Bantustan for the Namibian homelands, since some of these people were not Bantus but e.g. Khoikhoi? PatGallacher (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "bantustan" referred to the whole concept of "homelands" in a negative light. The bantustans in South-West Africa (aka Namibia) were bantustans regardless of the "accuracy" of the word. Stressing "bantustan" on an all-encompassing basis rather than "khoikhoistan" or "bushmanstan" or "batswanastan" or whatever made the point that these were artificial creations of the apartheid regime designed to promote the creation of black leaders who were divided on the basis of tribe and who adopted conciliatory stands towards the South African Government, along with forming pseudo-independent states in which the majority lived in poverty and were unwillingly striped of South African citizenship (and in many cases deported to their "tribal homelands" despite not identifying with them). --Mrdie (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The usage for anything else than a propaganda reference is NOT encyclopedic. The term "Bantustan" is also racially demeaning and in all inappropriate. Homeland is the officially term and should be the heading. That "bantustan" was used in propaganda can of course be included. --105.8.5.32 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

An accurate map?

I have never seen two maps of South Africa's bantustans that agree with each other. One might add a bubble of territory, while another might delete that. The first might show the Maputaland between Swaziland and Mozambique as part of KwaZulu, while the second could show it as part of KaNgwane. This is particularly troublesome in light of the fact that the borders of these places probably changed many times during their existence. Does anyone have any definitive answers to this problem?

206.116.221.68 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the best choice would be the situation as it existed between 2 February 1990 and 27 April 1994. On the first date the abolition of apartheid was anounced, on the second the homelands ceased to exist. Between these dates there were no changes to the boundaries of the territories. Then we try to find or create a map for that period. Roger (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

International recognition section

The section on international recognition was removed from the article on South Africa under apartheid. It should either be removed from both articles or restored. I thought there might be some expert opinion here on the matter. Please weigh in on the discussion there. futurebird (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is not here

The article is clearly written by someone with the standard "apartheid was the worst thing ever" POV, as evinced by statements like "But this goal was not achieved. Only about 55% of South Africa's population lived in the Bantustans; the remainder lived in South Africa proper, many in townships, shanty-towns and slums on the outskirts of South African cities."

55% of South Africa's population which would have been 100% black would mean that 75% of black South Africans lived in the Bantustans- shouldn't this be noted, and therefore the policy of Apartheid noted as having nearly succeeded in establishing the black South Africans in their own polities?

"South Africa's black population was subjected to a massive programme of forced relocation." How convenient there is no citation, nor is there mention of the fact that the vast majority of those people had lived in South Africa proper for maybe a generation or two since the entire black population of South Africa was heavily concentrated in the former Bantu reservations for most of the early 20th century

"The government made clear that its ultimate aim was the total removal of the black population from South Africa." If the majority of Bantus already lived in the Bantustans, and most were "removed" from South Africa by expanding the Bantustans to include black majority areas outside the existing reservations then "removal" seems like the wrong word to use and is clearly used as part of another smear on the government of the Apartheid era.

Certainly we are under an obligation not to lionize a specific government, but Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a scholarly air and avoid demonization of a specific government as well. Even more so when the demonization is both painfully obvious and is based on twisting words "55% of the population" which would translate to 75% or so of blacks is one very obvious example of twisting things around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.72.141 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't anticipate a reply (especially by someone whose last edit to Wikipedia was in 2014 and included calling another editor the n-word), but for the hell of it I'll point out the following for anyone curious in the event of similar arguments popping up again. First, according to one source, 39% of black South Africans lived in bantustans in 1960, which is clearly not a majority. This rose to 52% in 1980 (both percentages cited by Colin Murray in Segregation and Apartheid in Twentieth-Century South Africa, pp. 234-235.) The 1960s-80s saw forced removals of blacks, very largely to bantustans (3.5 million is the frequently cited number.) You call this a "smear," but it having happened is seemingly undisputed among historians. I don't know where you get "most were 'removed' by expanding the bantustans" from. In fact, removals were occasionally carried out due to reduction of land (e.g. in Bophuthatswana.)

Second, how does a majority of blacks having lived in "South Africa proper for maybe a generation or two" justify forced removals? Not only did many of those removed end up continuing to commute to "South Africa proper" for their jobs (with "independence" turning them into "foreign" workers with less legal protection), but you're also including persons who never lived in the territory they're being relocated to (and this is assuming every removed person was taken to a place their family had once lived in, or that every such person even considered themselves belonging to the population associated with the bantustan in question.) I can't see how blacks being "heavily concentrated in the former Bantu reservations for most of the early 20th century" justifies anything; it also ignores the hundreds of years prior in which black settlements inhabited much of "South Africa proper."

Third, the consensus among historians is that the bantustans were economically nonviable and overall unpopular among black South Africans. I fail to see how pointing this out is demonization. If the dismal record of the bantustans implies "Apartheid was the worst thing ever," it isn't the fault of Wikipedia. --Ismail (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bantustan. 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/20121203213119/http://autocww2.colorado.edu/~blackmon/E64ContentFiles/AfricanHistory/Bantustans.html to http://autocww2.colorado.edu/~blackmon/E64ContentFiles/AfricanHistory/Bantustans.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://about-south-africa.com/html/bantustan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The *actual* Canada connection...

It is flabbergasting that there isn't a SINGLE FUCKING MENTION on this page that the apartheid system was imported directly by Britain from Canada. Just swap "Indian reserve" for "Bantustan" and you're there! 70.48.112.199 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Lebowa.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Point of View Issues and Lack of Sources

I'm concerned that large portions of this article fail to comply with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy and/or contain insufficient sourcing/verification. In particular, the "Life in the Bantunstans" and "Later Developments" make some pretty significant claims and don't seem to have much in the way of citations to back them up. I am adding some tags to the page to flag these issues and I hope someone with knowledge of these topics can improve the article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved sentence

I have moved a sentence from the article for discussion:

Its connection with apartheid has meant that the term is now generally used in a pejorative sense as a form of criticism. [Reference: Evans, Laura (1 March 2012). "South Africa's Bantustans and the Dynamics of 'Decolonisation': Reflections on Writing Histories of the Homelands" (PDF). South African Historical Journal. 64 (1): 117–137. doi:10.1080/02582473.2012.655941. S2CID 55655044.]

This source mentions the pejorative nature in terms of South Africa but not in terms of "Usage in non-South African contexts", which is the subject of this sub-section. So usage in that location would be SYNTH.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, I inserted that reference and I am very careful with my sourcing – it's certainly not a case of SYNTH. You are mistaken and clearly didn't read the source itself, as it's explicitly about the term in non-South African contexts. However, the term ‘bantustan’ (meaning ‘Bantu state’) has been often used pejoratively by scholars and activists, with reference to the ‘stans’ created in the course of the partition of India in 1947 and to the Soviet satellite states. This paper follows such usage. I'm restoring the text to the article. Jr8825 • Talk 20:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jr8825: thanks for the explanation. That sentence is explaining the original formation of the word, it has nothing to do with subsequent non-South African usage. If you look earlier in the article, under the "Creation" section it says "The term 'Bantustan' was used by apartheid's apologists in reference to the partition of India in 1947. However, it quickly became pejorative in left and anti-apartheid usage, where it remained, while being abandoned by the National Party in favour of 'homelands'."[2] This source is explaining the same thing. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I see where you're coming from, and apologise if I was a bit snappy. I'll look at this again tomorrow or later this week. My view remains that the broader context which infuses Bantustan with derogatory meaning is relevant to its use as a critical term, but I agree the wording can be improved (just so you're aware, I didn't write the sentence, I simply added the supporting reference). It would benefit from a more explicit explanation of how its negative connotation stems from its original South African use, as a term used by contemporary critics of apartheid – in addition to simply being connected with apartheid, it has long been a term critical of apartheid. A dictionary may be the best source if the word's etymology hasn't been written about by academics; I'll check JSTOR. Jr8825 • Talk 00:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jr8825: ok, let's fix it together when you have time. This article definitely needs some work. I wouldn't be averse to having a "Name" section, which can describe how usage of the name evolved into a term used by critics. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jr8825: do you have time to finish our discussion here? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken a while to get back to you Onceinawhile, I'm really snowed under at the moment. I think we agree the first sentence is fine ("The term "bantustan" has been used in a number of non-South African contexts, generally to refer to actual or perceived attempts to create ethnically based states or regions") and that the issue is the second ("Its connection with apartheid has meant that the term is now generally used in a pejorative sense as a form of criticism"), which may well be accurate but as you've pointed out is OR/SYNTH right now as we're missing sourcing that explicitly explains this. There are 4.4k hits on JSTOR for bantustan, and nothing leapt out at me from the first few pages. Perhaps there's a fuller academic discussion of the term further down the results, but I don't have the time to scour through it all and I'm not particularly hopeful.

I think that sentence can be broken down into two separate statements that can be supported: (1) that the term became unanimously used in a critical sense in the South African context (supported by the Evans article, the two quotes we're already pulled out above) and (2) that the word is used in a derogatory sense (supported by Oxford Dictionary's Lexico). I think there are two ways forward, we can either replace the sentence with a new sentence made up of these two separate statements (something along the lines of "The term, which came to be used critically by opponents of apartheid in South Africa, is generally used in a derogatory sense"). Alternatively, and requiring more work, we could move these two points into a new, "Etymology" section that explains how the word's use has changed over time, including a fair amount of the content currently in the 'Creation' section, leaving only the first sentence in the 'Usage in non-South African contexts' section. If you agree with either of these solutions please go ahead and make some changes, I'm super busy at the moment. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 16:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825, I am happy with your first proposal "The term, which came to be used critically by opponents of apartheid in South Africa, is generally used in a derogatory sense", although the Macmillan source I added to the lede[3] is more directly relevant to support generic usage:

"1. one of the areas in South Africa where black people lived during the apartheid system; 2. ​SHOWING DISAPPROVAL any area where people are forced to live without full civil and political rights."

...and I think "showing disapproval" is a better formulation than derogatory, because derogatory is less clear which exactly is being disparaged. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

'Disapproving/critical sense' seems fine to me. 'Derogatory' sounds like general dictionary terminology anyway. Jr8825 • Talk 00:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks, I have gone with "disapproving sense". Onceinawhile (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)