Printable View
South Africa is the farthest from equator in sub-sahara africa, why aren't the natives, very light or olive skin tone??
I was so damn curious to know why aren't native south africans (Afrikaans) like lighter then the rest of Sub-sahara africa since the latitudes even reach almost -35?
If any one can answer :confused::rolleyes:
Um... a South African might be able to correct me on this but as far as I know, the people who are darker blacks like the Xhosa, Zulu, etc. are not actually indigenous to South Africa but came down from further north. The true indigenous people are the Khoisan and they are lighter than other SS Africans.
And Afrikaners are white South Africans, Afrikaans is their language.
Correct, the Bantu speaking people migrated from areas around the equator starting from around the time the Roman empire was crumbling. They're fairly recent arrivals.Quote:
Originally Posted by AcadianDriftwood
That native khoi-san are actually lighter skinned than their Bantu neighbors. Not by a whole lot, but some reach the pigmentation of the mixed African-Americans, ie; Obamatone.
EDIT: Also, as far as I know, the extreme southern tip of SA was uninhabited upon colonial arrival.
Whites have been there longer than the Zulu have... is that right?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Khagan
Allegedly. The area in question is Cape Town and the surrounding lands south of a river I forget the name of at this moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by AcadianDriftwood
No offence but you're as dumb as a pile of rocks, lol :D :thumb001:Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverKnight
The Xhosas and Zulu are indigenous for all intents and purposes (ok, depending on how far one winds back the clock) but they were originally settled along the North Eastern and Eastern parts of what is now known as South Africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by AcadianDriftwood
The Khois / San (Hottentots & Bushmen) were more indigenous to the Western and Southern parts.
Other black tribes would have been living in / around the North Central areas..... forgot which.
The Dutch (later joined by some French and later on Germans) settled the Cape (which had a smallish Hottentot and Bushman population already) around 1652 onwards. As they eventually started moving inland and East they came into contact with the African tribes.
Roman Empire!!! Roman Emp!!!!!!! Roooooo!!!!! :confused: :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Khagan
I heard the Sub Saharans moved in around the 15th century. Rome fell de facto early 5th century de jure late 5th century. Whitey came later, at least in the 16th century... Xhosa/Zulu beat us but not by much.
The Kung! aka Bushmen are the real natives.
I should have clarified. I meant initial Bantu expansion, as in, when it started, not when they arrived in SA. Which your date is pretty much correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Óttar
EDIT: according to Wikipedia, it says the Bantu arrived in Northern Transvaal at around 500 ad, which might be where I got my dating from.
It's truly hard to say and find accurate unbiased information on this subject.
Because these African people didn't rely on domesticated cattle and the vitamin D deficient diet encountered by the early Europeans.Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverKnight
Quote:
The evolution of the different skin tones is thought to have occurred in response to climatic conditions.[citation needed] The haired primate ancestors of humans, like modern great apes, had light skin. When hominids evolved relatively hairless skin (the most likely function of which was to facilitate perspiration)[citation needed] while living in sun-rich Africa, they co-evolved dark skin, which was needed to control the adverse effects of ultraviolet radiation on folate levels. When their descendants migrated to less sun-intensive regions in the north, low vitamin D3 levels became a problem and light skin color re-emerged. Sexual selection and diet may have played a part in the evolution of skin tone diversity as well[4].