This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article from the Spanish wiki is great. Perhaps someone that speaks Spanish well can translate parts of it and expand this one.
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)
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)
I'm surprised you took out the Canadian reference. Homey 04:47, 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)
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:
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)
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
(comment from banned editor remove)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://about-south-africa.com/html/bantustan.htmlWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
"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."
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article from the Spanish wiki is great. Perhaps someone that speaks Spanish well can translate parts of it and expand this one.
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)
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)
I'm surprised you took out the Canadian reference. Homey 04:47, 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)
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:
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)
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
(comment from banned editor remove)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://about-south-africa.com/html/bantustan.htmlWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
"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."