Talk:Kaffir (racial term)

2005

Merging

dont merge Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I split the original Kaffir page into (1) explanation of the historical uses of the word, as synonym of "south African native", and (2) discussion of its current usage in South Africa as an ethnic slur. Part (1) went to a new article South Africa Kaffir people. Part (2) was merged into this page. My excuse is that it is the same word, used in the two coutries with basically the same disparaging and offensive purposes, only with relatively small differences of usage. Jorge Stolfi 02:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Kaffir was no "racial slur". In fact it's used mostly neutral in the literature, which one can check with some effort. However some influential circles tried to get it declared or perceived as an ethnic slur. Obviously for the purpose of sowing discord. --105.12.3.178 (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)I Agree to the statement that this word is never a racist word. It has a meaning of: "a disbeliever in Devine Entity (Allah) or his prophet(s)". originally it means the covering, and it was used to refer to none believer meaning the one who covers the "Truth"

Coolie used?

I've never heard of a so-called Black who called an Indian a "coolie." The article is a disingenuos pack of lies. 151.201.129.196 17:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

My friend from Trinidad says that Blacks refer to East Indians as "coolies" and they in turn refer to black as "niggers" (when they are not in a charitable mood, I suppose). There is a lot of racism between the 2 groups, although it seems to be quite arbitrary - there are many exceptions to the rule.

In South Africa Blacks speak about the "Makula", which I think is derived from "Coolie". --41.19.26.20 (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

2006

Removed history of Jamaican Indian-African ethnic conflict

I removed the following material from the page. Since this page is about the ethnic slur term, keeping the following information here would inevitably look like a highly subjective attempt to justify or apologize for the use of the word. Perhaps this can be moved to some other article, say on the History of Jamaica tree. Jorge Stolfi 02:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In Jamaica, while "kaphar" and its many forms are used, there are not a result of racism (belief that a race is inferior to your own), but of prejudice (literally "judge before-hand", to stereo-type or generalize a group of people based on pre-conceived idea). The use of "kaphar" in Jamaica is exclusive to East Indians. Its primacy cause was the religious discrimination Hindus and Muslims received from Blacks, who were predominately Christian. Black Christians often openly called Indian "heathens" and "pagans". They also advocated banning Indians from migrating to Jamaica and sending all Indians already in Jamaica back to India. Faced with widespread discrimination, many Indians developed prejudices and saw all Blacks as anti-Indian. This led to Hindustanis (e.i. East Indians) beginning to refer to Blacks as "kaphars". The persistence of this word would be ensured due to legal discrimination against Indians (All Indians in Jamaica were recognized by the government as having the status of Indentured Immigrant until 1960) and governmental efforts to assimilate Indians into Jamaican society. In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, it was not uncommon for Indian school children to be taunted by Blacks who irreverently referred to them as "coolies". During recent years racial discrimination in Jamaica has declined although by no means extinct. Most Indians in Jamaica today are unaware of the origin of the word "kaphir", mainly because of the fact that most Indians only speak little or no Hindustani as a result of assimilation. Present day Indians use "kaphir" and Black as synonyms much like how Blacks use the words "coolie" and Indian interchangeably. Although "kaphir" is widely used, it rarely used when not speaking to another Indian. In this aspect it differs from "coolie" which Blacks use to openly refer to Indians even when addressing one.

South Africa

Corrected the errors in the article as it relates to South Africa:

• The word kaffir is not only used by white people.
• The word is used in a South African context to refer to black people. I am unaware of any widepread current or historical use of it to refer to Indian or so-called Coloured people in South Africa; more to the point, the Dictionary of South African English does not appear to be aware of any such use.
• Whatever the scriptwriter of Gandhi may have written, the word kaffir does not appear in Gandhi's own account of the incident at Pietermaritzburg

Gandhi himself used the term quite frequently refering to Blacks Racism of the Early Mahatma Ghandi

Irvin Khosa is a South African soccer administrator. Nicknamed "Iron Duke", he is the chairman of the South African organising committee of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, chairman of the South African Premier Soccer League and vice president of the South African Football Association. He is also owner of glamour South African Premiership side Orlando Pirates.There was recently a lot of controvercy because of his use of the word.--143.160.124.40 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Kemp is a white supremacist. Hardly the most reliable source.Goingoveredge (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Would a race denier or egalitarian be a more reliable source? Well, Arthur Kemp isn't even a White Supremacist, since he's not interested in ruling over Blacks. He simply doesn't want to be in the same political/social system with them. --105.8.193.117 (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• It is not only black people who find the word highly offensive Humansdorpie 13:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is mainly "white liberals" that do so. The Blacks just copied that.

I have no opinion myself (I have never read/heard the word before coming to Wikipedia); however, those claims have been in the article for quite a while. So excuse me for asking: have you lived in South Africa, or is your opinion based only on the sources you listed?
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 09:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ola, Jorge, yes - I'm South African. Humansdorpie 10:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with these changes. Also note that there is a huge difference between the words "kaffer, kafir and kaffir." Not many English speaking people understand the correct word used among all races in SOUTH AFRICA refered to as "kaffer." This word is an Afrikaans word like "apartheid" and taken up in the English understanding and some times misundertood. Contributors should not get confuse by the AFRIKAANS word "Kaffer" and belief it has the same meaning as "kafir and kaffir." Coloured people and mainly in the Cape use the word "kaffer" as Afrikaans speaking white South Africans. This word cannot be seen as racist or ethnic slur as not many English speaking people understand the Afrikaans context this word is used in. They try to contribute to this site leading into further confusion due to their lack of the Afrikaans language. They normally generalise towards their English misunderstanding of the word "kaffer" and refer to the term "kafir or kaffir." This may lead to great confusion among white English speaking people whom do not even understand the colored/coloured Afrikaans speaking individuals use of Afrikaans. Generalisation is made to refer to "kaffer" as a racist or offensive word. For most Afrikaans speaking people the word "f u c k" or "O my God" is far more offensive that the comic or racist use of the word "kaffer" when used in the correct context, even among black South Africans. This is typical due to the misunderstanding of English speaking people of the Afrikaans language whom generalise the English meaning of an Afrikaans word. The reference that the use of the word "kaffer" may lead to prosecution is nonsens! This again is a perfect misunderstanding of the Afrikaans langauge and the context the word is used. NO cases of prosecution exist in South Africa for the use of the word "kaffer." The government may be prosecuted first as many name places refering to kaffer stil exist. Not to mention the general reference to kafferwaatlemoen that refers to a type of watermelon. == RV ==

I've reverted the two changes made earlier today.

• That the word "is regarded as the most offensive word you could find" reflects opinion rather than demonstrable fact
• Use of the word has been actionable in a South African court since at least 1976 (I believe the case was Ciliza -v- Minister of Police and Another 1976 (4) SA 243) although I think Joziboy is quite right to highlight that the number of successful cases seems to have increased dramatically in recent years

Humansdorpie 18:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Those lawsuits should be mentioned in the article. They seem to be far more illuminating than the examples given there. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 13:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

197.245.193.183 (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone remove the "Slang" section please. Saying that the shortened version "kaff" is used frequently by young people of the Western Cape is absolute nonsense. I can confirm that as I am one of them.

2008

Gandhi

I deleted the reference to the film because the word used was 'sammy' not kaffir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.148.48 (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi used the word kaffir quite frequently. http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/2009/03/05/gandhi/ --41.17.4.46 (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalizing Gandhi's own words

Certain editors do not seem to like the fact that Gandhi liberally used the word "Kaffir" and did not like native Africans in South Africa. These editors are bound to vandalize that section on the article by repetitively removing it without discussing why they want it removed. The reason is simple, these facts are from Gandhi's own writings in "Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi", his columns in the Gujarati newspaper of those times, his letters written to British officers in South Africa etc and so cannot be denied. Please do not make wikipedia a place of propaganda and tell us if these words from Gandhi were false. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of "kaffir" by Gandhi has already been mentioned in the lead in this version as per this very reliable source (which Gandhi indeed did do). The sources you're adding (gandhism.net) doesn't count as Reliable given it's advocate is a militant Khalistani terrorist website. The excessive emphasis on Gandhi's use constitute WP:UNDUE, and finally, arguing with a Khalistani terrorist sympathiser is a waste of time, since WP:TIGERS states that we are not required to debate with extremists.Goingoveredge (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my dear Khalistani friend, but you can't bomb wikipedia as easily as you did Air India Flight 182. The issue here is not whether Gandhi used the term "kaffir" (he obviously did). The issue here is you Khalistani revisionists using wikipedia as a Soapbox to tout your Indophobic and terroristic views, which we can unceremoniously deny. iit's fairly well known that anti-Gandhi attacks are a purview of Khalistani revisionists in the US and Canada, who, despite their declared genocidal hatred for Hindus, have no trouble allying with extremist Hindu outfits like RSS (who were behind Gandhi's assassination) to tout their views under the bogus aegis of "multicultulturalism" (where any ridicilous idea is accepted as fact if it's put forth by a minority).The website in question clearly constitutes WP:FRINGE and is disallowed, regardless of your terroristic whining and moaning.Goingoveredge (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that that honor will be decided by non-Khalistanis, so you're in trouble there...Goingoveredge (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added back the bit about Gandhi's use of the term in the article, but in a toned down manner. This certainly deserves a mention in the article, but not an entire section. An entire section titled "Famous personalities to have used racial slur Kaffir" talking about how Gandhi used the term is clearly a case of an editor trying to impose his point-of-view on others. Please see WP:UNDUE, WP:TIGERS and WP:NPOV. utcursch | talk 09:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Utcursch, so seems like there was a problem with the title of previous text only? However, I beg to disagree with your conclusion. Is it false that those words are Gandhi's own words from his letters and columns from Indian Opinion newspaper? How is then a Wikipedia contributor guilty of "trying to impose his point-of-view on others" as you say? ..shooting the messenger? Those writings by Gandhi have African people in subject and Gandhi is liberally using the term to describe them in derogatory way. Where does the wikipedia contributor's point of view come into picture? --Roadahead (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring such laughable outbursts, there is one question I'd like to ask Utcursch. Given that scholarly consensus behind Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity has dismissed the book as garbage, should it be ccited as a Reliable Source? I think that the indian opinion citations are sufficient to show that Gandhi used the term "Kaffir" to refer to SA blacks.Goingoveredge (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. Try Wikiquote instead (it already contains some quotes that involve the use of the word Kaffir). Just like the Wikipedia article on non-violence or Quit India Movement doesn't contain numerous quotes from Gandhi, this article doesn't need to contain a list of quotes from Gandhi. Please see WP:UNDUE -- including five qoutes from a single person on an article not related to person is clearly pushing your point-of-view.

I'm a busy person in real life, and I don't have much energy or time to waste over such childish disputes. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I've already wasted my Saturday fixing articles on Sikh Rajputs, Kaffir, Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity etc., and I don't wish to waste more time over these. utcursch | talk 17:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

False attribution

I'll be editing the following line in the current form of the article: "Although used often inoffensively between the 16th and 19th centuries, including being used by Mahatma Gandhi[3], as racial tensions increased in 20th century South Africa, its use became more racially slanderous than just a general word to describe a race of people." Issues:

1. . It makes a claim that Gandhi used the word "Kaffir" inoffensively. This claims seems Original Research
2. . then hints attribution to the current citation [3] [1]. This news article does not claim anything like that.

--Roadahead (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why dubious

An editor has marked the following piece of information as dubious:
"Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, during his stay in South Africa, often used the term "Kaffir" to refer to the native Black Africans. For example, he once wrote in Indian Opinion, "The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs."[3] Many such examples are cited in the book Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity, which alleges that Gandhi had a racist attitude towards the Blacks, whom he considered inferior to the Europeans and the Indians."

However, this editor has put no section on the talkpage containing his contentions despite the fact line contains information which is easily verifiable and is well cited. Gandhi's words where he extensively used the word "Kaffir" in derogatory way are present in "Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi" and not just in the book by author G. B. Singh. Another information given by this line above is also very well verifiable that the book contains several such examples. Please do not use wikipedia "dubious" template to mark and delete information within a day. This is not the intention of this tag. I feel the information conveyed by the line you marked dubious is verifiable and accurate. If you still think otherwise, prove this here on the discussion page. Otherwise, the "dubious" tag will be removed. --Roadahead (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia policies regarding Verifiability and Reliable Sources, especially the part about Extremist and fringe sources.Goingoveredge (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

“ Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities ”

Now read the reviews of this trashy book and draw the correct conclusion.Goingoveredge (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm "choosing" reviews that reflect scholarly consensus, as opposed to partisan extremist "reviews" made by propagandistic nonentities and militant autodidacts.Goingoveredge (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And YOU are still not "understanding" (sic) that wikipedia is not a Soapbox for Khalistani revisionism from the likes of political propagandists like Ed Towns (who has no academic credentials), or that dentist chap Baldev Singh (who probably has no credentials of any kind). I mean, I am a "Dr" someone too (I have a PhD). can I write up some crap in my blog and have it included on wikipedia as a Reliable Source too? Pleeeease? </sarcasm>

Wikipedia reflects academic and peer reviewed consensus, which Khalistanis are fundamentally incapable of comprehending, so clearly any debate is useless and they can be treated as run-of-the-mill internet trolls with a revisionist agenda to push.Goingoveredge (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Xavier but about Manfred Steger, an accredited historian. On wikipedia, his analysis carries precedence over a random fellow with no real credentials or propensity for critical thought (a common affliction among Khalistani revisionists).Goingoveredge (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The fact that Gandhi had anti-Black views is not in dispute here (the Indian opinion article clearly demonstrates that). The issue here is the Notability of an unscholarly and non peer-reviewed work by a khalistani radical that ahs been almost universally panned in the academia, though it's been supported by Khalistani neo-fascists.Goingoveredge (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

2009

Concerns about the recent additions to the page

I have some concerns about the massive recent additions to the page. I've already reverted it once [2] and it has been added back, so I'm here on the talk page to stave off an edit war.

• Some of the changes read as highly POV. Examples (note that these particular statements aren't sourced):

• "For many years, the term kaffir was used as a general derogatory reference to a dump[sic] and idiotic black person not believing in a god"
• "The word is still used but as a general reference to black people, that lead to discrimination against whites after 1994 when apartheid was demolished in South Africa"
• "When the word is used by a white person it may refer to a dump[sic] idiotic black person that discriminate against the white individual. In this context the word is not racist at all but a reference to a type of individual's behaviour."
• "There is no reference to hate speech in this context, but may be seen as hate speech depending on the uninformed English speaking person"

• The changes are poorly sourced. Many whole paragraphs are unsourced, and the sources that are there don't necessarily back up the statements that they are supposed to support, which makes it look like much of the new text is original research and published material that advances a position. For example:

• The statement "Today it may be considered a form of hate speech but is not necessarily considered a form of hate speech as it depends on the context and race of the individual using the word" is sourced by an essay that takes issue with the fact that the word "kaffer" was left out of a recent dictionary, but doesn't say anything about whether or not it is considered hate speech. The essay doesn't mention hate speech at all.
• The statement "This is also referred to as reverse discrimination or affirmative action and the term "kaffer" is mainly use today in this context" is sourced by a reference to the National Organization for Women's Origins of Affirmative Action page, which doesn't mention the word "kaffer" or refer to South Africa at all, and also explains why NOW doesn't think that the term "reverse discrimination" is entirely legitimate.
• The entire Modern use section is sourced by a single reference to urbandictionary.com, which is hardly a reliable source. This section is an entirely new addition. The source listed for the statement "use of the word among colored people sometimes referred to as hotnot" is also urbandictionary.com.

• Aside from the problems above, the additions have some real grammar and style problems.

I suspect from the comments on my talk page by the user who made these changes[3][4] that it will turn into an edit war if I make any drastic changes myself to the article, but is there a consensus here to remove most or all of the new additions? It's possible that the user who wrote this has some good points that could be integrated into the article (if reliably sourced, of course), but I really don't think the article should be allowed to stand as it is. --Dawn Bard (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dawn Bard, I agree. The material recently added is mostly nonsenese - as well as being unsourced POV, it is barely English. I am cleaning up the article now. --hippo43 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose we merge Kaffir (ethnic slur) with Kaffir (historical usage in southern Africa). Both articles are about the same word, and address different periods of its use. For me, we should have one article with sections covering Etymology, Usage in various periods and countries, and the Current meaning. See nigger - one article can easily encompass both the history and current use of a word like this. --hippo43 (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I never really understood why they were separate. As you say, it's easy enough to cover historical and modern usage in the same article. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, if there are no objections over the next few days I will do it. --hippo43 (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Factual Errors

Under the "[edit] Apartheid-era South Africa" section, it was only alledged by the accused that the victim called him a kafir. It was not found by the court and there was no other supporting evidence of the fact. It should be noted that the intention of Almond Nofomela was to steal from the farmer that alledgedly called him a kafir. All of it is in the cited documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.19.76.237 (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

"Kaffir is derived from the Arabic word kafir" "Kaffir is derived from the 'Boer'" Which is it? The sentence claiming it to be derived from "Boer" is at best marginally literate. I'm removing that sentence on the grounds that it seems unlikely and the already-cited marginal literacy. If whoever believes this to be correct can provide citations (unlikely, as Boer is Dutch for "farmer" and is entirely unrelated to the KFR root), they can put it back in. 174.65.175.154 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

2012

I forgot to clarify a change made: if anybody is wondering, all I did was change the opening paragraph's section's ultimate paragraph's phrase from "In any case..." to "In either case...", as it is grammatically, and semantically, more appropriate.41.160.162.144 (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

When?

Re the query in the following, viz.: The works of Richard Hakluyt[4] contains an early[when?] written use of the term in English. He writes: calling them Cafars and Gawars (Ilitterate), which is, infidels or disbelievers.[5]

The passage referenced dates to July 1568 according to the source it derives from. See "The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of the English Nation", Volume 4, p. 46 (for the quotation), and p. 44 (for its apparent date). Vancouveriensis (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

By Richard Hakluyt, Edmund Goldsmid

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kaffir (racial term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828044250/http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/2000/a4-00.pdf to http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/acts/2000/a4-00.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kaffir (racial term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722234224/http://www.larri.com.na/research/pdf/Labour%20Rights%20Report.PDF to http://www.larri.com.na/research/pdf/Labour%20Rights%20Report.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907225621/http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/NationBuilding/Article.aspx?id=718421 to http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/NationBuilding/Article.aspx?id=718421
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/man-loses-appeal-over-k-word-1.1720142

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "kaffir"

The pronunciation that's given is specifically for British English. To anyone who doesn't already know that, the pronunciation looks like it should be [KAF-uh]. Can someone please point this out through an edit, or change the pronunciation so it isn't just specific to British? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.151.63 (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"K word" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect K word. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

London Stock Exchange

In the early 20th century, Kaffirs was a common reference for South African mining shares traded on the LSE. People trading in these shares where called "Kaffir circus" also described in the Dictionary of South African English (here). Although nowdays considered derogative, the term made the headlines of the London Times and other notable newspapers of those days and ought to be mentioned here. Yotwen (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)