LOL. Again, your argument is self-incoherent and a rationalization for doing nothing. By this logic taking the land away from white people and giving it to black people is not a punishment either - after all, "not having something someone else has is not getting punished." If you're willing to accept white ownership of the land from theft as given then you have no actual argument against black people just taking the land back. FWIW I think this argument reflects race-essentialism. If you have an actual argument to make about different methods of rule between the Bantu-speaking iron-age states and the rule of Europeans in southern Africa you can make it (I think there are important differences e.g. the introduction of chattel slavery and racial caste) but claiming it is inherently different because it is from overseas is a bit silly. The issue is that Shaka's conquests have very little to do with a political settlement in South Africa. The continuing effects of European conquest and the following centuries of white rule are what need to be addressed. Anyone claiming that Shaka's conquest (let alone the Bantu migrations) should be just as relevant for policymaking is either deeply ignorant or just making excuses for the status quo.