Don't get me wrong. I am very anti-Mugabe. That still doesn't mean that your politics is the same as mine.

I don't have a problem with white Africans as such. So, whatever disagreement I am having with you, don't throw your skin colour at me.

Point is, apart from your posting, there is no historical source-whether written, oral or archaeological to support the idea that Bantus decimated the Khoisan by deliberate genocide. As I said, Bantu is a linguistic term rather than a racial one, although this fact is hardly given consideration when compared to the other dichotomisation of African people such as Hamtic, Hamito-Semitic, Nilotic, Hamito-Nilotic etc. These too are more lingusitic than anything.

Bantu is a state of mind. Just like Negro, Black British, Carribean etc. My genetic make-up is Kushitic, Khoisan, Semitic, Hamito-Semitic, there's even a few drops of Portuguese as well - which could well include infusions from the Barbaric sacking of Rome. Recently, scholars have speculated on the extend of links between Zimbabwe and Indonesian mariners! So, Bantu is an identity based on my language being of the Bantu family of languages, themselves a branch of the Niger-Khordofan family.

The people of the Indian sub-continent speak languages akin to Latin, English etc. Are we to say that Europeans invaded and slaughtered the original inhabitants when the evidence of racial mixture is there for all to see?

I think you are a very ignorant person, and am ashamed to be from the same continent as you. Again, this is nothing to do with your skin colour. Many white Zimbabweans have contributed to uncovering the story of Zimbabwe, Peter Garlake, Dr Gelfund ( who is also Jewish) etc.