"Setswana" and "Sesotho" tribes too new to have a culture; it's all different Kalanga tribal cultures!
The Daily News of 14 August carries a report titled "Facilitators appreciate significance of teaching Setswana". Mention is made of "...a Setswana culture, which [is] by design, descriptive [rather] than prescriptive".
My aversion to what is referred to as "Setswana culture" stems from the fact that the Setswana language is a relatively new language on Earth, compared to Kalanga, for example. The Setswana language speakers would have us believe that Setswana language is, at the very least, as ancient as Kalanga. But they never explain to us why the workgroups (read tribes) to which they belong have Kalanga names, corrupted to sound like Setswana, but meaningless in Setswana language: Ba-ku-lutshi, Batugwa, Balindi, Bangwa-Ato, Bangwa-khwizi, BeHakata, Ba-ta-Wana, Balilima (Barolong); Ba-ku-ina (Bakwena). Despite the corruptive encroachment of the "Setswana" language into such names, the speakers of the Setswana language and its derivatives, such as "Sesotho" cannot completely throw away their Kalanga identities.
As recently (in historical terms) as two hundred years ago, the Royal houses of the so-called Setswana/Sesotho tribes gave their children Kalanga names which were clearly descriptive of the tribe's workgroup identity. When humanity was created, the Batugwa had the responsibility of hauling goods up to the top of Mapungubwe hill. In the early 1800's the Batugwa king named his daughter "Ntathisi" - a Kalanga word which means precisely that responsibility. His wife, now called MaNtateisi, is a woman of legend among the Batugwa, now called "Batlokwa". The Ba-ku-ina (Bakwena) king named his son "Si tjele" meaning "do not fetch water". The Ba-ku-ina were animal minders/herders. A familiar refrain from their leader was to stop "unauthorised" people fetching water from their animal-watering wells. The Bangwa-Ato (milkers) king named his son "Kama", meaning just that -"do milk!". Today the name has been corrupted to Khama. Even the king of the Basotho, reputed to be an extension of the Batswana, could not resist naming his son as per his peoples' original tribe - the Swazis. The name "Moshoeshoe" is a corruption of "Nshoshi", a Kalanga word which means a fence mender, where the fence is made of mainly fresh thorny branches. Such branches commonly belong to a tree named "nsu" in Kalanga, and "mosu" in Setswana. No wonder the people concerned call themselves "Ba-Sutho", meaning people of the Mosu tree.
The rash by the kings to name their children as per their original workgroups was probably in resistance to the British attempt to create new nations free of the original Kalanga identity, which the British considered "Portuguese-aligned" and therefore deserving of obliteration. When the British explorer David Livingstone told the Bakwena, Barolong and others that they were now to be known as Bechuana, they resisted; telling him that they were just different tribes with different names. That is on record , in Livingstones travel notes. What we are not being told is what they told him was their unifying national name. If indeed they all spoke the language today called "Setswana", why did they resist being called "Bechuana"? The fact is that they spoke mainly Kalanga, but the British wanted them to speak Sumerian instead, the better to change their allegience/association from Portuguese to British!
I have written before that Sumerian/Coptic/Sotho/Tswana language is a new language on Earth. It was brought here by the two hundred Igigi who arrived to attend the Anhunnaki god Marduk's wedding to an earthling. Sumer was predominantly an Igigi city. Its name suggests a corruption of the Kalanga word "Summa", which means "hissing sound". This suggests that the Igigi were predominantly from the Orion stars - the SSS people, rather than the Sirius (wolfen) people. I leave it here for those with PhD's to trash, as is their right so to do!
That said our country is in an undeniable dilemma. We call ourselves, or rather are forced to call ourselves, Batswana. Our country is probably the only country in the world which makes no distinction between its citizens and those of other countries who happen to speak the Setswana language. Our country "officially" calls Zimbabweans, Namibians and South Africans who speak "Setswana", Batswana. Think of that. I was born and raised in a part of the country that speaks Kalanga, and not Setswana. However, I am forced to describe myself as a Motswana, a term that our country officially uses to refer to nationals of other countries. Where is national pride in that? How does this country ever expect me to accept a descriptive identity that bundles me as a compatriot to a South African, a Zimbabwean or a Namibian? Why is it that the citizens of those countruies are described in a non-ambiguous way: You are a South African only if you are a citizen of South Africa; similarly for a Zimbabwean, a Namibian or for that matter a Zambian or an Angolan? It is only the former British "Protectorates" which have adopted tribally discriminatory names: Lesotho, E-Swathini, Botswana! Not surprising, given the British "divide and rule" tactic that Dr. David Livingstone deployed to rip the "Bechuana" from their Kalanga identity.
All the above shows that the so-called Tswana identity/culture does not really exist. A culture that started when the Europeans were already in our country; a culture that was commanded into our people just two hundred years ago cannot in all seriousness be called a culture. There is a Rolong culture, a Ngwato culture, a Ngwaketse culture, a Kwena culture, a Kgatla culture etc; all these being tribally specific components of the Kalanga culture, not of some imagined "Tswana" culture.
My aversion to what is referred to as "Setswana culture" stems from the fact that the Setswana language is a relatively new language on Earth, compared to Kalanga, for example. The Setswana language speakers would have us believe that Setswana language is, at the very least, as ancient as Kalanga. But they never explain to us why the workgroups (read tribes) to which they belong have Kalanga names, corrupted to sound like Setswana, but meaningless in Setswana language: Ba-ku-lutshi, Batugwa, Balindi, Bangwa-Ato, Bangwa-khwizi, BeHakata, Ba-ta-Wana, Balilima (Barolong); Ba-ku-ina (Bakwena). Despite the corruptive encroachment of the "Setswana" language into such names, the speakers of the Setswana language and its derivatives, such as "Sesotho" cannot completely throw away their Kalanga identities.
As recently (in historical terms) as two hundred years ago, the Royal houses of the so-called Setswana/Sesotho tribes gave their children Kalanga names which were clearly descriptive of the tribe's workgroup identity. When humanity was created, the Batugwa had the responsibility of hauling goods up to the top of Mapungubwe hill. In the early 1800's the Batugwa king named his daughter "Ntathisi" - a Kalanga word which means precisely that responsibility. His wife, now called MaNtateisi, is a woman of legend among the Batugwa, now called "Batlokwa". The Ba-ku-ina (Bakwena) king named his son "Si tjele" meaning "do not fetch water". The Ba-ku-ina were animal minders/herders. A familiar refrain from their leader was to stop "unauthorised" people fetching water from their animal-watering wells. The Bangwa-Ato (milkers) king named his son "Kama", meaning just that -"do milk!". Today the name has been corrupted to Khama. Even the king of the Basotho, reputed to be an extension of the Batswana, could not resist naming his son as per his peoples' original tribe - the Swazis. The name "Moshoeshoe" is a corruption of "Nshoshi", a Kalanga word which means a fence mender, where the fence is made of mainly fresh thorny branches. Such branches commonly belong to a tree named "nsu" in Kalanga, and "mosu" in Setswana. No wonder the people concerned call themselves "Ba-Sutho", meaning people of the Mosu tree.
The rash by the kings to name their children as per their original workgroups was probably in resistance to the British attempt to create new nations free of the original Kalanga identity, which the British considered "Portuguese-aligned" and therefore deserving of obliteration. When the British explorer David Livingstone told the Bakwena, Barolong and others that they were now to be known as Bechuana, they resisted; telling him that they were just different tribes with different names. That is on record , in Livingstones travel notes. What we are not being told is what they told him was their unifying national name. If indeed they all spoke the language today called "Setswana", why did they resist being called "Bechuana"? The fact is that they spoke mainly Kalanga, but the British wanted them to speak Sumerian instead, the better to change their allegience/association from Portuguese to British!
I have written before that Sumerian/Coptic/Sotho/Tswana language is a new language on Earth. It was brought here by the two hundred Igigi who arrived to attend the Anhunnaki god Marduk's wedding to an earthling. Sumer was predominantly an Igigi city. Its name suggests a corruption of the Kalanga word "Summa", which means "hissing sound". This suggests that the Igigi were predominantly from the Orion stars - the SSS people, rather than the Sirius (wolfen) people. I leave it here for those with PhD's to trash, as is their right so to do!
That said our country is in an undeniable dilemma. We call ourselves, or rather are forced to call ourselves, Batswana. Our country is probably the only country in the world which makes no distinction between its citizens and those of other countries who happen to speak the Setswana language. Our country "officially" calls Zimbabweans, Namibians and South Africans who speak "Setswana", Batswana. Think of that. I was born and raised in a part of the country that speaks Kalanga, and not Setswana. However, I am forced to describe myself as a Motswana, a term that our country officially uses to refer to nationals of other countries. Where is national pride in that? How does this country ever expect me to accept a descriptive identity that bundles me as a compatriot to a South African, a Zimbabwean or a Namibian? Why is it that the citizens of those countruies are described in a non-ambiguous way: You are a South African only if you are a citizen of South Africa; similarly for a Zimbabwean, a Namibian or for that matter a Zambian or an Angolan? It is only the former British "Protectorates" which have adopted tribally discriminatory names: Lesotho, E-Swathini, Botswana! Not surprising, given the British "divide and rule" tactic that Dr. David Livingstone deployed to rip the "Bechuana" from their Kalanga identity.
All the above shows that the so-called Tswana identity/culture does not really exist. A culture that started when the Europeans were already in our country; a culture that was commanded into our people just two hundred years ago cannot in all seriousness be called a culture. There is a Rolong culture, a Ngwato culture, a Ngwaketse culture, a Kwena culture, a Kgatla culture etc; all these being tribally specific components of the Kalanga culture, not of some imagined "Tswana" culture.
Comments
Post a Comment