Reply #85: Translation: you are a modernist who believe black South Africans have no history and should

[Leopolds Ghost]

"overcome their archaic ethnic classifications."

I am not amused by your calling me a supporter of Apartheid.

I stopped reading after the part where you declared that
there was no such thing as Matabeleland, or as you put it
"some ancient kingdom".

Your modernist attitude that Black Africans have no history,
that Zimbabweans have no national history pre-colonization,
and that the very existence of pre-20c. KwaZulu is an apartheid fiction
is outrageous.

and only proves my point in the OP that most historians are
modernists or postmodernists who reject the very idea of
pre-colonial political divisions as "unattested pre-history."

There have been reams of sociological texts documenting the
failure of your "reformist" attitude and demonstrating that
"supposed tribal groups" were not conveniently destroyed to
make way for your Marxian sociological utopia (or whatever
it is you're trying to sell by declaring me a fascist for
recognizing the relevance of pre-colonial history.)

Then you have the claim that there are no attested "facts"
about these supposed "tribal groups" -- you see the existence
of pre-colonisation African nations as pure unattested pre-history
of no relevance to the modern day.

Moreover, you mistook my entire OP for a post about the
20th centuiry. The entire post was about pre-colonization era,
the 18th and 19th century.

In other words, you are asserting that the pre-existence of
political units (KwaZulu, Matabele, Mossi) that correspond
with contemporary political regions is a fiction.

This is equivalent to saying that modern-day Lithuania bears no relation to the kingdom of the same name, and that anyone who claims to have an ethnic history as a Lithuanian is a conservative reactionary.