With the recently announced intention of Minister Nathi Mthethwa to rename South Africa, the logical conclusion is that the old terrorist name for the country would probably become the official name. Question is: Will we become citizens of Azania now?
Maybe we should first look at the motivation for the idea, as explained by the minister. Mthethwa says that “colonialist” names should be changed and listed a whole bunch of places already renamed. In this he was supported by the president of the African Peoples’ Convention, Themba Godi, who said South Africa should have followed the examples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, who changed their colonial names after independence. Ever since the 1960’s the PAC and Azapo and various others referred to “Azania” as opposed to “South Africa” being a colonialist term. Mthethwa says “South Africa” is merely a reference to a geographical region.
If “decolonisation” is the reason for the renaming, then Azania is the worst choice imaginable. And to understand that, we need to look at where the name comes from and what it means.
The first reference to “Azania” comes from the Greeks. Azania (Ancient Greek: Ἀζανία) is a name that has been applied to various parts of southeastern tropical Africa. In the Roman period and perhaps earlier, the toponym referred to a portion of the Southeast African coast extending from Kenya to perhaps as far south as Tanzania. Pliny the Elder mentions an “Azanian Sea” that began around the emporium of Adulis and stretched around the south coast of Africa.
The 1st century AD Greek travelogue the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea first describes Azania based on its author’s intimate knowledge of the area. Chapter 15 of the Periplus suggests that Azania could be the littoral area south of present-day Somalia (the “Lesser and Greater Bluffs”, the “Lesser and Greater Strands”, and the “Seven Courses”).Chapter 16 clearly describes the emporium of Rhapta, located south of the Puralean Islands at the end of the Seven Courses of Azania, as the “southernmost market of Azania”. The Periplus does not mention any dark-skinned “Ethiopians” among the area’s inhabitants. They only later appear in Ptolemy’s Geographia, but in a region far south, around the “Bantu nucleus” of northern Mozambique. According to John Donnelly Fage, these early Greek documents altogether suggest that the original inhabitants of the Azania coast, the “Azanians”, were of the same ancestral stock as the Afro-Asiatic populations to the north of them along the Red Sea. Subsequently, by the 10th century AD, these original “Azanians” had been replaced by early waves of Bantu settlers.
In short therefore, “Azania” is the old region which was OCCUPIED, COLONISED and LITERALLY STOLEN from the original owners, by the Black people of Southern Africa. Now, put THAT little scrap of colonialist history in your pipe and smoke it Nathi!
In South Africa, the majority of the black nationalist groups including the PAC and AZAPO use the name to refer to South Africa. They officially denote the name as the Pan-Africanist Republic of Azania. They also believe that it should be the official name of South Africa.
In summary therefore, ancient Azania was a Greek term for a country colonised by black people. Modern Azania would still be a Greek term for a country in which the black majority is the colonialist power oppressing minority groups.
One should be careful of what you choices reveal about your character, Minister! The truth is right there, in the history books!
Read the original article by Daniel Lötter on Front Nasionaal SA – blad
South Africa Today – South Africa News
