The Colonial Construction of Race in Africa: Debunking Myths and Unravelling Histories of the So-called First Nation Identity

The colonial categorisation of African peoples into distinct groups such as Bantu, Nilotes, Khoi and other artificial classifications was a deliberate and harmful process. These categories had no basis in reality but were created to justify colonial exploitation and control. Dividing African populations into racial categories was intended to establish a hierarchy that portrayed certain groups as more civilised or advanced than others. These classifications, rooted in pseudo-scientific racial theories, had no factual basis but served to justify European domination.

The end of apartheid in South Africa has given rise to new challenges related to these colonial constructions of race. One such issue is the fluidity of the so-called Coloured identity, which remains contested as some individuals and groups seek to redefine themselves outside the broader African identity. A particularly significant development is the emergence of a movement advocating for exclusive recognition as Khoisan and adopting the term “First Nations,” inspired by similar classifications in the Americas and Australia. This movement positions itself in contrast to the so-called Bantu peoples, challenging historical narratives that frame the Bantu as later migrants to southern Africa as a result of a mythical Bantu migration.

This article argues that colonial-era classifications continue to shape contemporary identity politics, and the framing of a distinct Khoisan identity must be carefully examined. While there is legitimacy in reclaiming historical and cultural heritage, the risk lies in inadvertently reinforcing the very divisions that colonialism imposed. This strategic manoeuvring reveals a strong desire to distance itself from the broader African identity. Many people, including the Inqua, the Giqwa and the amaNgqosini, also have Khoekhoe origins.

Furthermore, Tara Roos warns, “The rise of the so-called ‘First Nation’ movement risks oversimplifying the multifaceted nature of the Coloured identity.” The movement simultaneously rejects and embraces aspects of its past, denouncing the Coloured label to escape its apartheid-era stigma while at times leveraging its historical privileges under the Tri-Cameral hierarchy, a system that historically privileged Coloureds over other African groups. This strategic positioning highlights deeper struggles over belonging and recognition within South African society.

• The Role of German Scholars in Shaping Racial Thought

In the period leading up to the First World War, Germany was at the forefront of the academic study of Africa’s history, ethnography, and languages. This dominance is critical in understanding how Western scholars, mainly from England, France and Belgium, adopted and propagated theories from German researchers. The latter contributed significantly to the belief that the peoples of Africa had no history of their own. This idea would later serve as the foundation for the Hamitic theory.

The Hamitic theory argued that civilisation in Africa was not indigenous but had been brought by the ‘Hamitic’ peoples, who were theorised to have migrated from Asia. This theory drew from the broader ideas of German philosopher Georg W.F. Hegel. In The Philosophy of History, he divided the world’s peoples into ‘historical peoples’ (those who contributed to civilisation) and ‘non-historical peoples’ (who made no significant contribution to spiritual or cultural progress). Hegel considered Africa, except for parts of North Africa such as Egypt, to be a “non-historical” land with no significant evolution of its own.

This dismissive view of African civilisation, which regarded it as an offshoot of European or Asian influence, ignored the continent’s rich cultural heritage. Thus, the Hamitic hypothesis persisted in colonial scholarship, suggesting that some African peoples were more civilised than others. According to this theory, groups engaged in cattle breeding with more complex social structures were of Hamitic origin. The Hamitic myth also entrenched itself in Western thought and influenced African peoples’ academic and scientific study for decades.

Figures like Karl Meinhof, a prominent German linguist and organiser of many African languages like isiZulu, kiSwahili and Sepedi, built upon Hegel’s ideas. Meinhof's work, particularly his Die Sprachen der Hamiten (The Languages of the Hamites), claims that the San people, the indigenous hunter-gatherers of Southern Africa, were the original inhabitants of the region, distinct from the Bantu-speaking peoples. These early inhabitants were regarded as a distinct, different race with unique linguistic features like click consonants. This misconception would later affect colonial ethnography, falsely classifying the Bantu as a ‘race’ rather than a linguistic group.

• Bantu as a Linguistic Group, Not a Race

Tracing its origins from the despicable raciation of Africans, the term ‘Bantu’ refers to a linguistic group, not a race. According to this logic, Bantu-speaking peoples are united by the shared characteristic of speaking Bantu languages, but these languages encompass a wide range of cultures, ethnicities and physical traits. However, colonial anthropologists conflated language with race, leading to the creation of the ‘Bantu race’—an oversimplification that created rigid classifications that ignored the fluid and interconnected nature of African societies.

The racialisation of the Bantu-speaking peoples led to further artificial distinctions, such as the categorisation of “Congoid,” “Nilotic,” and “Capoid” racial groups. These arbitrary divisions were used to justify differential treatment and the subjugation of particular communities. In reality, physical traits such as skin tone and facial features vary widely across Africa and do not correspond neatly to colonial racial groupings. The persistence of these racial myths has hindered a more accurate understanding of Africa’s historical and cultural diversity.

A particularly striking example of racial misinterpretation is the colonial classification of light-skinned individuals in Central Africa, or ‘yellow men’, as a separate racial group from Bantu-speaking populations. Researchers like Samuel P. Verner, in the early 1900s, described these so-called “yellow men” as distinct from their darker-skinned neighbours, speculating that they might be of non-African descent. These assumptions stemmed from a broader colonial belief that lighter skin tones indicated foreign ancestry, reinforcing the idea that African civilisations could not have developed independently.

In reality, these light-skinned individuals were part of the broader Bantu-speaking population and displayed physical traits that did not indicate a separate race. Verner’s observations that these ‘yellow men’ lived alongside their darker-skinned neighbours across Central and South Africa highlight the complex nature of African diversity. Their physical appearance was shaped by various factors, including local genetic variations and historical migrations, but did not signify the existence of a distinct ‘race’, as colonial anthropologists once suggested.

The artificial categories of race created by colonial powers were never grounded in scientific fact. They were used to justify the domination of African societies and to reinforce the idea of European racial superiority. The notion of a ‘Bantu race’ is a myth that obscures the reality of African diversity. In this context, race is a social construct that has been used to divide and conquer, both during the colonial period and in contemporary times.

• The Khoisan, Pygmies and the Question of Race

The question of whether the Khoisan and Pygmies should be considered separate races from the Bantu and Nilotic peoples of Africa highlights the deep misunderstandings surrounding African identity. As already outlined, the term ‘Bantu’ is wrongly interpreted as a race when, in fact, it refers to a linguistic group. The Khoisan and Pygmies are indigenous groups with distinct languages, cultures and histories. However, these groups have historically been marginalised and misclassified within colonial racial frameworks.

The Khoisan, for instance, were labelled as ‘coloured’ under apartheid in South Africa, a classification that stripped them of their unique heritage and identity, reducing them to an artificial racial category. This legacy of misclassification continues to hinder society’s ability to recognise and respect its unique history and existence fully. Roos cautions that the 'First Nation' movement could lead to an overly simplistic view of the Coloured experience because not every so-called Coloured is Khoi, and vice versa.

Similarly, the Pygmies have endured centuries of marginalisation and racial misclassification, particularly in Central Africa. Colonial and post-colonial states frequently deemed them primitive or inferior due to their distinct features and hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Classifying them as racially separate from other Africans stems from the same colonial logic used to divide and control the continent. Instead of acknowledging them as part of Africa’s rich diversity, these classifications have pushed them to society’s margins, reinforcing racial hierarchies that should be dismantled.

Nonetheless, the forced classification of the Khoisan as ‘coloured’ has stunted society’s ability to view them as anything but that. This legal categorisation served as a tool to deny and erase their identity, history, and cultural memory. It deprived them not only of their heritage but also of their humanity. More broadly, these colonial racial categories caused lasting harm by reducing the diverse identities of African peoples to arbitrary labels, usually to the benefit of colonial powers and their exploitative systems.

• Conclusion

The colonial construction of race in Africa was a tool of division and control, shaping identity politics to this day. The persistence of racialised classifications, from the misrepresentation of Bantu as a race to the marginalisation of Khoisan and Pygmies, shows how deeply entrenched these ideologies remain. While reclaiming African identities is vital, it must avoid replicating colonial divisions and claiming fictitious ‘first nation’ tags. True decolonisation requires rejecting apartheid-era hierarchies, including the South African state’s continued use of the ‘coloured’ label, and embracing Africa’s entire cultural and historical diversity. As scholars like Patric Tariq Mellet advocate, restoring dignity to all indigenous peoples demands breaking free from colonial myths and fostering unity rooted in historical truth.

Siya yi banga le economy!