Bushmen Win Rights Over Ancestral Lands

The Guardian (UK) ^ | 12-14-2006 | David Bereford

[blam]

Bushmen win rights over ancestral lands

David Beresford in Lobatse
Thursday December 14, 2006
The Guardian (UK)

The Bushmen of Botswana yesterday appeared to have won a famous legal victory in their long-running battle to hang on to ancestral lands in the giant Central Kalahari game reserve. The Botswana high court ruled that the Bushmen, whom the government had tried to evict by cutting off their water supplies and other services, lawfully occupied the land. Three judges found that they had been deprived of possession of the land "forcibly, wrongly and without their consent".

The court also found that the government's refusal to issue the Bushmen with special permits allowing them to be in the reserve was unconstitutional, while its failure to give them special hunting licences was unlawful and unconstitutional.

[Disturbin]

Wow. "Bushmen" is not very PC, is it?

Shouldn't we be calling them bushpeople?

[headstamp]

OK, now on to the casino construction.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Bush(man)'s fault.

[sergeantdave]

I'm not sure what this means, but the three things African citizens need is private property, contract and the rule of law.

[fish hawk]

Now it's time for all the freepers that bitch about any article about American Indians to show up here and give there testimony about how those lazy bushmen didn't do anything with the land and that it is okay for "eminent domain" to remove them. After all they probably will just open a Casino now,or after they kill all the game in that area. You think I'm far out, well, I've read this sort of trash right here on FR. and more than once. I know there are a lot of you good guys out there but we have our prejudices here just like everywhere else. Oh, and white men were here before the Indians. That's another one I see here all the time.

[BIGLOOK]

Thanks......we only lived here for 10,000 years.

[blam]

"Oh, and white men were here before the Indians. That's another one I see here all the time."

I don't know if they were White but, someone was here before the Indians.

Vintage Skulls

"Of additional significance is the shape of the skulls, which are described as long and narrow, very unlike those of modern Native Americans."

[Strategerist]

The Bushmen have been there a lot longer than 10,000 years, and they've indeed been treated horribly by everyone near them, whites and also the invading black Bantu tribes from the north.

[fish hawk]

Thousands of years ago, natives were not like the natives of today. So, why should not there skull be different. Hey, maybe they "evolved".

[BIGLOOK]

The Kwai were driven into the Kalahari by the Hottentots. There's evidence that dates back 25,000 years of their occupation of the area of Botswana and the NW province of South Africa and other areas in the Transvaal.

[blam]

Take this Journey Of Mankind and notice the number of different waves of people entering the Americas. They were all likely different and they came at different times.

[BIGLOOK]

Iroquois and Huron do not look like Navajos and Apaches but Inuit and Araucanians are very similar.
God knows who was here first but we have clues why they came, Bar-B-Cue for one.

[blam]

"God knows who was here first but we have clues why they came, Bar-B-Cue for one."

Nah. BBQ came from Haiti to the US through North Carolina.

[elli1]

Iroquois and Huron do not look like Navajos and Apaches but Inuit and Araucanians are very similar.

Excellent point. And Cherokees look very different from Arapahoes. And that's to say almost nothing about the tribes that are extinct. Like this guy: