What's your problem with it, Matt? If you don't like 'Bantu', well, I'll admit categories are ever a problem, but not all Africans were Bantu. And, as I understand it, the Cape had never been inhabited by Bantu. As I don't personally go along with historical primacy arguments when it comes to the rightful pairing of peoples and territories (which is not to say I oppose 'landrights' - there are good and practical reasons for that at times), I don't think this matters, other than to highlight the fact we can end up with a different history, depending on how far back we go, and on what our categories are.
If our categories are 'black' and 'white', rather than, say, 'Bantu' (of which, just to complicate things, Zulu, Xhosa, Basutu and N'debele are all subsets - and there were no Zulus before Chaka instituted them in the late 18th century, and no N'debele before Mzilikase deserted Chaka's Zulus to start an alternative society - all of this long after the Cape was firmly in white hands, and a distinct Afrikaans culture had developed), 'Hottentot', 'Bushmen', 'Afrikaner' and British 'rooinek' South African, well, we'd have very different histories, wouldn't we?
And why is 'boer' (and not all Afrikaners are farmers) a better category than 'Afrikaner' (which, unsurprisingly, they all are)?
Oh, and if you favour expelling Afrikaners from the continent, where would you prefer them to go?
Cheers, Rob.