From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Africa / South Africa (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa (marked as Top-importance).

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Afrikaners and Dutch[edit]

I don't really understand this discussion, or rather: the need for this discussion. It would seem like someone (Ron7) wants to push an ideological POV to separate Afrikaners from Dutch people as much as at all possible, for a narrative painting them as an oppressed people of the latter. Then there's a lot of talk of how much of the settlers were actually "Frisian", "Flemish", "(Low) German", "Danish" and whatnot, as to prove they were not "really" Dutch after all? This is wholly nonsensical to me, and to anyone who understands the historical composition of the Dutch people or any people in general. Who is to be called "Dutch" anyways? Those living within Dutch borders? Those with a Dutch nationality or even passport, which is a recent convention? Frisians are then Dutch too according to those definitions. Or you could say just 1600s "South Holland Dutch" is "originally Dutch", but many of those are descended from Flemish refugees after the Spanish took hold of the Southern Netherlands. Many North-Hollanders are in some sense naturalized Frisians, who had colonized the area earlier. Are Low Germans not Dutch in some sense? Many people in the North and East of the Netherlands traditionally speak dialects that are Low Saxon just like those across the border. Actually the word "Dutch" and "Deutsch" are cognates meaning "(of the) common people". Do we really need to go into these complexities when just giving a general impression in the introduction? Is there any reason for not saying "predominantly Dutch" other than essentially ideological ones? I mean, as soon as the Huguenots, (Low) Germans or any other immigrants adopted Dutch language and general culture, then surely they are to be regarded as Dutch in a socio-cultural, when not genetic, sense? Just like the Flemish and other refugees shortly after the creation of the Dutch Republic? Fedor (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As an interesting side-note: I am Dutch and my paternal Grandmother is of French Huguenot origins. Many French refugees went to the Netherlands and stayed there. So this artificial differentiation between the Dutch and Afrikaner nations at that early stage is really quite absurd. Again: Much more than one's genetic heritage, it is one's adoption of and assimilation into Dutch culture and language that that makes one 'Dutch'. Fedor (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
From the latest archive to be created by the bot. I thought I would add a footnote to this discussion after being contacted by Ron again this week: it is abundantly clear that the obsession with identifying Afrikaners with one particular ethnic group or another may have gone too far, but it's hardly a phenomenon limited to Wikipedia. It's a product of Afrikaans people themselves, and South African academics at large, trying to polarise an ethnic history into neat little packages - when in fact the formation of any ethnic group is always a complicated process.
As I review the notes I have made over the course of researching this article, indeed, researching Afrikaans surnames and compiling lists of their progenitors, I suddenly made an interesting realisation. A large proportion of the Dutch population whose names came up in official records shared a common ancestral origin with the Afrikaners outside the modern Netherlands - a roughly equal percentage of Afrikaans and Dutch surnames, for example, originated from the same areas of Lower Saxony, Rhine-Westphalia, Schleswig, and in the late 1600s especially France (Huguenot exiles). Yet here we are talking about Afrikaners or groups of Afrikaners being "Danish", "German", or whatnot in origin, while nobody questions that Dutch are Dutch. Before there was a unified Germany or Denmark or even a clearly demarcated Netherlands, nationality was more a means of self-identification and this is obviously representative of that. I no longer understand how or why Afrikaners are somehow paraded as an important French or German diaspora - they're no more that than today's Netherlanders.
Took me a while, but I finally understand what User:Fedor was going on about. He's 100% right. --Katangais (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a general misunderstanding here because you have to remember that the term Dutch was originally used to describe a number of different ethnic groups within continental Europe of Germanic origin like those of German / Frisian & Netherlandic ethnic origin. This is why the Amish in the USA who are German descendents are also often called & or are said to speak Pennsylvanian Dutch. Thus in this archaic use of the term Dutch one can be technically correct in asserting that many of the various ethnic groups which were the ancestors of the Afrikaans speakers were Dutch, but in today's world the dominant understanding & interpretation of the term Dutch is reserved generally to those who are from the dominant Netherlandic ethnic group. Thus, seeing as how a lot of Germans & Frisians & French Huguenots were sent to the Cape & not just ethnic Netherlander Dutch - it would be incorrect by today's definition of the term Dutch to assert that those groups were all Dutch as we have come to understand the term Dutch. I find it disingenuous to assert that theses distinctions "make no difference" when the whole point as to why the VOC ever sent them to the Cape in the first place was due overwhelmingly to their minority ethnic status or general low social & economic status within the Netherlands. The French Huguenot refugees fled to Holland [ & elsewhere ] in order to escape Catholic persecution in France before some of them were sent to the Cape. The VOC had flooded the Frisian ancestors out of their homes in order to force them into long contracts which caused them to end up at the Cape. Those of authentic Netherlander Dutch roots were no doubt low on the social / economic ladder. The German Protestants who were sent out to the Cape were often those who had been long since seeking refuge in Holland from Catholic persecution.
The diary of Jan van Riebeeck clearly outlines how he viewed the folks he sent to the Cape therefore to assert that they were not being oppressed because they were "all Dutch" rather misses the point. Because it looks like you are confusing or are conflating Dutch sociology with Dutch ethnicity. It's a bit like saying the slaves [ whether they were White or Black ] in historical America were not oppressed because "they were all Americans". Indeed many of the German & Huguenot refugees living in Holland could in a sociological sense & certainly in a civil sense have been referred to or seen as "Dutch", having learned to speak Dutch [ often as a second language ] or adopting Dutch customs, but they would have still been of non Netherlands Dutch ethnic roots. Which is what the VOC noticed all too well because they sent those people the Cape whom they wanted to expel from the Netherlands. The people the VOC sent to the Cape were seen as ethnic minorities in the Netherlands. In today's world people would have called what the VOC had done with their deliberate targeting as a form of "ethnic cleansing" coupled with discrimination against the indigent class. So to just cavalierly assert that all these groups were "all Dutch" does not match up with how the actual Dutch ruling elite saw them despite the ironic fact that they were often listed as "Dutch" on documents... probably owing to the two tier definition of the term Dutch.
The other important thing to remember is that the Boer people in particular appear [ based on the available genealogy of the folks who lived on the Cape frontier ] to actually be mostly of [ or at certainly have a plurality of ] German origin as none other than resident Wikipedian Katangais obtained an interesting book which outlines a list of the names of the Voortrekkers - who were descended from the Trekboers of the 1700s who started the Boer people - which were [ mostly ] traced back to 3 main areas of the north western modern day German State. Thus whenever one speaks of the general Afrikaner [ which is a political term that was first used by the Oorlam before it was politicized & appropriated in 1875 at Paarl by Cape Dutch intellectuals for the purpose of promoting a pan Afrikaans language union movement ] being of Dutch descent they are generally correct as the Cape Dutch outnumber the smaller Boer people under this designation [ the term Afrikaner was also applied to the Anglophones as well by politicians from the late 19th cent up to the 1930s ]... but the actual Boer people [ the folks of Trekboer descent ] themselves are in fact not "mostly" of Dutch origin. This makes perfect sense since the Trekboers got started from the poorest members of the fledgling Cape Colonial society who were often from the various ethnic groups who were not of Netherlands Dutch origin. Therefore the modern day use of the term Dutch would not be a sufficient term to describe the true ancestors of the Boer people in particular.
Ron7 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
While I cannot question what my own research has told me regarding the respective origins of the Boer/Cape Dutch subgroups, I will point out that I tracked a lot of the surnames mentioned in Dutch civil courts at the time (1652-1691) from Amsterdam to the same three areas of modern Germany where most of the Boer progenitors came from. It proves that either people who immigrated from these areas at some point, or their descendants, were well represented in the Netherlands' population and presumably still are today. After all, even if the assertions about the Dutch trying to get rid of as many of them as possible were true only a minority ended up in South Africa with the VOC. Isn't it logical that most of them remained in Holland and are still there today (in which case, they would be indistinguishable from other Dutch)?
I only object to referring to Afrikaners as a significant German or French diaspora in any meaningful sense of the word. They adopted Holland's language, religion and culture, and became assimilated: just as they did in Europe.
@Fedor: the research Ron and I have mentioned above was an extensive study of Afrikaner families to locate where their ancestors originated. A book of Voortrekker names and an index of European families at the Cape was used to calculate roughly which percentage of the progenitors came from where. Initially the figures look to be about equal from several areas but if you combine all the states which now equate to modern Germany most of the Voortrekkers seem to have ancestors from Rhine-Westphalia, Schleswig, and Lower Saxony. A lot of them were speaking Frisian dialects.
But as I just mentioned it's hardly a phenomenon unique to Afrikaners. If the names on Amsterdam's court registers (several of which are freely available on Google Books) is anything to go by, many Dutch also had ancestors who came from these places. --Katangais (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no disputing at all that many of the German Protestants / Frisians & French Huguenots who fled to Holland have descendents who are still there today & are fully assimilated into the Dutch people & culture. I have never disputed this. The various surnames still there is evidence of this. But it is important to remember that the time frame that we are talking about here was back when they were still fairly new to the region & were thus not as assimilated nor considered as integral to the Dutch culture as they are today. I would have thought that this would have been most obvious. For example: There are a lot of Americans with German surnames who are fully integrated as Americans today but who were originally part of a German speaking group at first. Just because the VOC did not manage to get rid of all of their ethnic minorities it does not negate nor dispel the original intent of shipping them out. A lot of other countries around the world have tried to get rid of their ethnic minorities under various schemes yet much of those ethnic minorities still exist within the various regions or have been somewhat assimilated into the dominant cultural group so your argument that the VOC did not get rid of all of them does not dispel the original intent. Remember that most of the people sent to the Cape actually went back to Holland if they could after their contracts were up so the numbers they initially sent were a lot larger than the numbers of those who remained. Do not forget also that they did not just send their minorities to the Cape as many were also sent to Indonesia or India & elsewhere. The point is that during the time frame when the various ethnic groups were expelled from Holland they were still discernibly distinct from the majority Dutch ethnic group.
I have no idea where this diaspora assertion is coming from as I have never said that the various White Afrikaans speakers were a diaspora of any group. In fact the whole point to why I ever chimed in concerning this topic in the first place was over the one dimensional assertion that they were allegedly "mostly" of Dutch origin. The whole point as to why I ever mentioned the other significant ethnic roots was specifically to point out that they are not a Dutch diaspora. I personally have always noted that the various White Afrikaans speakers were the result of an amalgamation of the various ethnicities that the VOC dropped off at the Cape during the mid to late 17th cent. So I have never promoted the "diaspora" theory at all since the White Afrikaans people are the result of an amalgamation process among many different ethnicities which all took place on African soil. So I am not sure why this particular / peculiar & erroneous notion is being directed towards myself. Even if the hypothesis that the Cape Dutch are "mostly of Dutch origin" or that the Boer people are "mostly of German origin" I would still not call either of them a diaspora of the Dutch or German people[s] simply because both Cape Dutch & Boer groups amalgamated with significant numbers of French Huguenot & other groups & the fact that they strayed from the culture of their ancestors after creating their own homegrown culture & customs on African soil.
No. The ancestors of the White Afrikaans speakers did not even adopt Holland's language. This appears to be a common misunderstanding due to the fact that the official - re: imposed - language of the Cape was Dutch at a nominal level. The various Dutch dialects that the first arrivals spoke was lost as it lost out to the emerging vernacular which was developing at the Cape. What we today now call Afrikaans but was often just called the "taal" in the past. Numerous Afrikaans dialects flourished in the past but today only a few remain. IE: West Cape Afrikaans / Orange River Afrikaans [ the dialect of the San & Griquas ] / Eastern Border Afrikaans [ the dialect of the Boers ] / & Kaaps [ the dialect of the Cape Coloureds. ] The language that the ancestors of the White Afrikaans speakers adopted was the vernacular that developed on African soil from the various peoples that developed there under the aegis of the VOC. Professor Wallace Mills noted this explicitly also noting that the official Dutch that was used in the Church & for State purposes had to be learned later. Though many never even bothered to learn very much of the official Dutch. [ Note: This is why Afrikaans was made an official language in 1925 formally replacing the Dutch that was largely ignored by the masses. Also: Afrikaans was promoted to official status to offset the growing predominance of English in official spheres as it was feared the Afrikaans speakers would abandon Afrikaans & become Anglophones ] Thereby demonstrating that the local White Afrikaans speakers had never adopted Dutch. Authors have routinely noted that there is very little about the Boers' culture & language that can be attributed to Dutch roots. The emerging Cape Dutch & Boer peoples preferred speaking the vernacular of the Cape simply because this was the language that was transmitted to them since childhood via the nannies / educators & caretakers that looked after them. It proved to be very hard to try to get the Afrikaans speakers to adopt Dutch much to the chagrin of the Cape administration. No. The White Afrikaans speakers at the Cape never adopted Holland's religion nor culture. The religion they adopted was often from the French Huguenots - as their Calvinist faith that they fled France over had the largest impact on the new settlement - as well as an indigenous homegrown belief system of Malay origin [ Professor André Du Toit noted this ] that was largely lost after the second Anglo-Boer War.
Ron7 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't directing the French and German diaspora thing specifically at you, Ron. But what ticked me was the fact that until a few months ago somebody kept adding those two templates to the article and including them as related ethnic groups, which is what I was addressing. There is a line we have to draw between describing Afrikaners as "French", "German", "Dutch" or whatever and simply elaborating on their roots. There can be no question that the various groups in SA have developed unique identities of their own.
I understand there wasn't a completed Afrikaans Bible until the twentieth century. So it's logical that even most of the Boers learned to read and write by Holland Dutch, even if they weren't speaking it. In fact, one of the main reasons the Afrikaans Bible was proposed in 1872 was because the gulf between spoken Afrikaans and written Dutch had simply become too wide for understanding their Scripture. Furthermore, it is a little known fact that Dutch was still taught in Cape schools until 1914, and upper-crust whites could speak it fluently in high society. Some of the Cape Dutch apparently regarded Afrikaans as much a "crude patois" as many of the English.
I'm from Malaysia and have been raised among Malays of every imaginable religious background, including many Christians. Forgive me if I fail to note the resemblance between their faith and anything I encountered in South Africa. I'm not even going to address your assertion that the majority of white Afrikaans speakers adopted the beliefs of the Huguenots without seeing multiple sources to back it up. If you can give me those in written form, I'll gladly revise the article to reflect it. I have a feeling that's news to most of us here on Wikipedia! --Katangais (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a complex debate going on as to what constitutes a related ethnic group. I can see how the Dutch / French & German peoples can be seen as related ethnic groups in the aggregate to the Afrikaans speakers - seeing as how the Boer & Cape Dutch ethnic groups are based on & related to those groups. It appears that you are promoting a very strict criteria because I have no problem with the notion that the above mentioned are related ethnic groups. As I noted: the Afrikaans speakers are not a Dutch / French or German people[s] as they developed into distinct peoples, but the Dutch / French & German people could certainly be seen as related.
As I noted Professor Wallace Mills pointed out that Dutch had to be learned later in order to perform Church & State duties, but not everyone did learn Dutch. Consequently many Boers prior to the 20th cent never learned to read or write much outside of those who studied the Bible. The Malays that Professor André Du Toit was referring to would have been the Malays from Indonesia - not Malaysia & the Cape Malays in particular. Furthermore I pointed out that that particular old faith has largely disappeared & has long since been supplanted by the Christian faith. You were erroneously asserting that they adopted Holland's religion when in reality the original Afrikaans speaking inhabitants had adopted a homegrown faith system that was based in part on the religion of the Cape Malays but was often hidden by the Church establishment & had since largely disappeared after the second Anglo-Boer War. Remember not all Boers were practicing Christians, some were practicing this alternative Cape Malay derived faith, & some were not religious at all.
Now it is obvious that among the Christian segment that the belief of the Huguenots played a very strong & dominant role in the Calvinist faith espoused by many Boers & Cape Dutch since the Huguenots were the strongest adherents of the Calvinist faith that was brought to the Cape & was compatible with the Calvinist & Protestant [ milquetoast by comparison to the hard core Huguenots ] faith that many of the other inhabitants [ who would later amalgamate with the Huguenots ] of the region were practicing. The following from the paper: Christianity in Central Southern Africa Prior to 1910 from Professor Irving Hexham is what he had discovered on the topic.
[ The argument that Calvinism played a central role in Boer society, from the earliest settlement at the Cape to the present has an initial plausibility, but a growing number of scholars believe this interpretation lacks evidence.[47] To date, the best discussion of an alternate interpretation is found in the works of André du Toit who argues that before the late nineteenth-century frontier Boers were not noted for their religiosity.[48] I myself also have developed this view, suggesting that identification of Afrikaners with Calvinism did not take firm hold until after the horrors of the Second-Anglo Boer war.[49] ]
[ In her classic work, The Story of an African Farm,[56] one gains an impression of the daily life and thought of the Boers as a people living close to nature and far from established religion. A central feature of these beliefs concerned folk medicine and ideas about spiritual healing, from faith healing to herbal remedies and sympathetic magic. Kruger's autobiography told how at a shooting accident in which he amputated his thumb: the wound healed very slowly...gangrene set marks rose as far as the shoulder. Then they killed a goat, took out the stomach, and cut it open. I put my hand into it while it was still warm. This Boer remedy succeeded...[57] He noted that the goats grazed on a river bank where many herbs grew. This he thought explained the success of the cure. ]
[ Probably the most important and widespread traditional religious beliefs was the belief in second sight or the gift of prophecy, usually attributed to individuals born with a caul who were thought to possess extraordinary psychic powers. Such people were said to be able to foresee droughts and disasters as well as weddings and births. Telepathic gifts were also attributed to certain farm people. One prominent professor emeritus told me that, in 1909, he had witnessed a fellow student communicating with his brother by telepathy over several hundred miles. The brothers had an agreement that after lunch every Sunday they would walk out into the veld, sit under a tree and seek to establish telepathic contact. In this way the student said he learned of doings at home far quicker than by letter.[69] Such a gift, the professor maintained, had been common among country people in his youth although few urban Afrikaners he said possessed the gift of telepathy today. ]
[ The best known example of a man born with the caul is Nicholaas van Rensburg, the "prophet" of Lichtenburg. Van Rensburg is said to have had his first "vision" at the age of seven in 1869, when he assured his mother that she need not fear an attack by local Africans during her husband's absence. He gained his reputation as a "seer" during the second Anglo-Boer War, credited with warning commandoes of approaching British troops, and with having a vision in which he saw "The Red Bull wounded and defeated." This vision was held to predict General de la Rey's victory over British troops at the battle of Tweebos on 7 March 1902.[70] ]
[ Sometimes, as in the writings of Herman Charles Bosman Afrikaner ghost stories, have definite religious connotations, their background often African beliefs about the ancestors or beliefs of Malay origin derived from an Islamic culture where the jinn, that is the spirits, are a living reality. Many such stories warn of impending death or the activities of malevolent spirits.[74] ]
[ Although some Afrikaners apparently believed in tree, water, and air spirits, none I talked to said they did. Some did say they had known people who held these beliefs and who took magical precautions to protect themselves from the spirits. ]
[ [57] Paul Kruger, translated by A. Teixeira de Mattos, The Memoirs of Paul Kruger: Four Times President of the South African Republic. Told by Himself, London, T. Fisher Unwin, 1902, p. 37. ]
[ [58] I was given a very detailed account of these cures by a medical doctor whom I interviewed in 1971. At that time he was in his early 70's and still practising medicine on a part-time basis. His parents were very prominent Afrikaners as are his children and sons-in-law. Therefore, he asked me to use a pseudonym, Dr. van Coy. His mother had been a traditional healer and he practised homeopathic healing alongside allopathic medicine. In answering my questions about traditional Afrikaner folk beliefs and folk medicine he was very careful to distinguish between beliefs and practices which his mother had used or said were used prior to the Second-Anglo Boer War and the development of medical practices throughout this century. Because of his own interest in the history of medicine and homeopathy he had kept meticulous records of conversations with his mother. ]
[ [62] ibid, p. 117. Frack is deliberately vague when writes about a small town he calls "Helfontein." Dates and anything which might identify people or the community are omitted. Nevertheless he appears to be talking about the Transvaal in the early part of this century. ]
[ [64] Frack, 1942, p. 126. Numerous entries in the archives of the Gereformeerde Kerk prior to 1910 involve Afrikaners who were censured by the local Church Council for consulting "Malay doctors," "Slamaaiers," etc. ]
[ [75] In 1981 I interviewed an Afrikaner woman who was 93 years old and still living alone who clearly held many of these beliefs although she acknowledged that she would never mention them to her predicant. ] End of quoted excerpted text.
I added some of the notes found on Hexham's page as he made further points on the topic.
Ron7 (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the criteria, Ron, I feel that a certain degree of control needs to be exercised because the fact remains that Afrikaners have progenitors from literally dozens of European nationalities - not even counting their African and Asian ancestors. Off the top of my head I can recall two Danish fiefdoms, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, five German states excluding Austria, two provinces of France, both distinct regions of Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Scotland, Wales, Poland-Lithuania, and England being represented. Instead of denoting all white Afrikaans people as being "that group that developed in Africa from Danish-Swedish-Norwegian-Dutch-German-Austrian-French-Flemish-Walloon-Luxembourgish-Swiss-Italian-Spanish-Portuguese-Scottish-Welsh-Polish-English settlers, plus a number of Indian, Malay, Bantu, and Khoisan slaves" it's so much easier to just state: "descendants of predominantly Dutch settlers who lived in a colony of the Dutch East India Company and adopted Afrikaans as their mother tongue". And we can argue that it is in fact an accurate statement. The contributions by the other groups, especially the Huguenots and Germans, can be noted but Afrikaners by no means represent a French or German diaspora culturally or otherwise. Actually I dislike giving Afrikaners any kind of European label because in my experience that tends to feed the racial divide, ie suggesting they are somehow Germans or Dutch or French and not Africans! However, at least with the Netherlands you can argue that they have been historically associated with that nation and most of their progenitors are in fact Dutch.
Whatever our different perceptions on the ancestry and cultural perceptions of Afrikaans people, it seems we both agree that the article needs to emphasize their presence in Africa as Africans - albeit white Africans - rather than any European ties which have mostly been forgotten. Hence, my growing desire to limit the amount of unneeded ethnic "labeling".
The cites you provided on Malay beliefs were most helpful; I'll add the relevant information to Afrikaner Calvinism. --Katangais (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Well no one is saying that you have to include every single ancestral group in the opening paragraph, but I still think that only mentioning the Dutch roots is rather incomplete considering how strong & notable the German & Huguenot roots are. Most of the time whenever I read something on the White Afrikaans speakers, they very often note that they are of Dutch / French Huguenot & German origin as those 3 groups appear to be their most numerous & significant ancestral origin. I rarely read that they are only of Dutch descent. The preponderance of German & Huguenot surnames are a notable testament to this fact. Even many first names of German & French origin are quite popular among the White Afrikaans speakers. Authors like Oliver Ransford made specific mention of the Huguenot influence which was said to be quite discernible within the comportment among notable personalities like Piet Retief & even the later General Piet Joubert. The White Afrikaans speaking peoples would clearly not have been quite the same if they were only of Dutch descent. That is the reason why I think that the opening paragraph should mention the other two significant ancestral groups because evidence clearly shows they had a significant impact upon the shaping of both the Cape Dutch group as well as the Boer population.
Ron7 (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph as well as the front page listing the notable personalities that are claimed to be associated with this macro language based grouping even totally vindicates my valid point on this topic because most of the names listed there are not even of Dutch origin which appears to counter the assertion of the first paragraph. For example: the first paragraph asserts that the names Botha & Pretorius are common surnames of this supposedly "mostly Dutch descended" macro grouping... yet both of those surnames are conclusively proven to be in fact of German origin. Within the notable personalities box [ one of whom was actually a Boer ie: President Paul Kruger of the ZAR who lived in an era before the Afrikaner co-option of the smaller Boer people ] it features the following surnames that are not of Dutch origin: The Kruger surname is of German origin. The Hertzog surname is of German origin. The de Klerk surname is of French Huguenot origin & was originally spelled Le Clerc [ Bernard Lugan noted this in the book he authored on the topic ] The Coetzee surname is of either German or French Huguenot origin [ from Cordier according to Bernard Lugan ] the Theron surname is of French Huguenot origin. Therefore MOST of the surnames featured or highlighted within the article actually NEGATES the initial premise concerning the article thereby demonstrating an inherent dissonance & contradiction.
Ron7 (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Global Presence[edit]

Neither the Netherlands nor Belgium offer working holiday opportunities to South Africans, and with the UK's immigration laws that also changed, none of the Commonwealth nations offer working holiday permits to South Africans any more. Maybe the section on Global presence be changed to reflect this?

Origins of Afrikaans[edit]

Author, your article refers to Afrikaans as a "dialect which evolved from the Dutch vernacular of medieval Brabant".

The main article on Afrikaans says otherwise( So does that of Dutch ( Take the time and check the citations; I am sure you will find them more, uhm, relevant. (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this claim about "medieval Brabant" makes no sense at all. The Dutch settle in the Cape during the second half of the 17th century (a long time after the "medieval" era) and most of them spoke various South Hollandic dialects. The paragraph also omits the French contribution from Huguenot settlers. (BTW IP, there is no single "Author", that's just not how a wiki works.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
That is in fact what the given citation claims word for word. I'll review my sources and replace the particular phrase with something more relevant if indeed this violated WP:Fringe as far as consensus on the origins of Afrikaans are concerned. @Dodge I've always understood that the French contribution to Afrikaans was relatively minor and survives only in a handful of surnames, place names, etc. Though present in French, the curious double negations and Latin-esque loanwords in Afrikaans have also been attributed to English and the Khoisan languages, respectively. --Katangais (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Fedor, there is an ongoing discussion pertaining to the disputed text here. I would appreciate if you would make your comments known to everybody else before removing cited statements without doing your research. I have looked at Nelson's work cited in the text again and located the information with relative ease. Your claims to the contrary are simply not holding up.
Pg. 121 of the given source states, "Afrikaans is a form of Dutch derived from Middle Netherlandic, the spoken language of seventeenth -century Brabant, in an area overlapping the boundary of modern Holland and Belgium."
I have confirmed it is available at the link you posted here.--Katangais (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, for (momentarily?) reverting to my original changes; I overlooked the discussion here and thought that my corrections were reversed by mistake, because it happened in tandem with the reversal of changes by an anonymous IP. I will look at the mentioned source and report back asap. Fedor (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I looked at it and still stand by my position. I can see how you can base this on that particular quote, but it is muddled and ambiguous, which is why you have interpreted it wrongly. "Middle Netherlandic" or Middle Dutch was spoken between roughly 1100 and 1500, as you can read up on yourself, long before 1634. So therefore alone it does not make sense to state that Afrikaans is based on a particular dialect of Medieval Dutch. So why would the writers phrase it like that? I think this is because Standard Dutch itself has been largely based on medieval Brabantian, and thus, by extension, Afrikaans too. This happened during the split of the Netherlands after the Dutch Revolt in 1566, where the southern lands, amongst wich the chief part of the duchy of Brabant, remained occupied by the Catholic Spanish. This triggered a huge immigration of Protestant Southern Dutch (mainly Brabantian) refugees who settled in Holland and subsequently influenced the main form of the Dutch language, which was later exported to South Africa. This is also stated here: Dutch_language#Development_phases That is probably the reason for that particular phrasing, but it is still poorly formulated, I think. In any case, one would need a little more than a single ambiguous quote from a non-scientific source to base one's case on. How about a more thorough analysis of linguistic characteristics? No matter what, however, such details are more appropriate on the actual page on the Afrikaans language itself. Fedor (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
"Scientific sources" and "Non-scientific sources" are some terribly vague terms. I would assume you're referring to a study that focuses specifically on the linguistics of the language, but could you define them for me in this context please?
Harold Nelson is hardly an obscure fringe; he's well regarded in the US academic community for his work on Southern Africa and has published a number of books pertaining to both South Africa and Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). If he doesn't count as a "scientific" source I'm genuinely at a loss as to what does. --Katangais (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I never claimed that the author was fringe or non-scientistific, but the source used is a military handbook, not a linguistic study. I am confused as to why "scientific" versus "non-scientific" would be vague. A "handbook", or encyclopedia for that matter, may base itself to varying degrees on scientific consensus, but is not a scientific source in itself; it is merely a summary as assessed by the author. A scientific source would be something that is the result of scientific analyses in the relevant fields and peer-reviewed. I have done some searching and found some more relevant sources, that hit the point home. Fedor (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Dutch linguist G.G. Kloeke did a comprehensive study on the origin of Afrikaans, comparing it to different Dutch dialects, and concludes that the original language, as formed by around 1700, would be largely based on South Holland dialects, although slight influences from -amongst others- Brabantian cannot be ruled out. Herkomst en groei van het Afrikaans - G.G. Kloeke (1950) English summary See also: Roots of Afrikaans - Hans den Besten (2012) Fedor (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This more recent study also confirms the findings of Kloeke (1950) that "The two chief sources of Afrikaans, the old dialects of South Holland on the one hand and the High Dutch on the other, are reflected in the vocal system. In some respect Afrikaans is of a pronounced conservative “Holland” dialectal character": The origin of Afrikaans pronunciation: a comparison to west Germanic languages and Dutch dialects - Wilbert Heeringa, Febe de Wet (2007) Fedor (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


So, I have some running commentary relating to this section in the article: "Boers" is an anglicisation of "Boere"; which is Afrikaans (and Dutch) for "farmers" (singular would be "boer"). And then, "burghers" is another anglicisation ("burgers"); which is Afikaans (and Dutch) for "citizens", which I would imagine is how one would've distinguished oneself from a slave, during that period?

In the second paragraph, Hendrik Briebouw (1707) referred to being "African" not an Afrikaner. In other words, reference to his heritage as apposed to race and language. So I think the article can go without this section. Comments? ruan (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The section was more to introduce the distinct Boer and Cape Dutch subgroups of the Afrikaner population, as well as introduce the first instance widely cited by historians as a Dutch colonist identifying as an "African". Giving a run-down on both of these are essential for the audience to understand the article later on. Keep in mind that "Afrikaner" and its variations ("Afrikander", "Afrikaaner", "Afrikaander", etc) simply means "African" so there's no reason to differentiate. --Katangais (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I disagree: "African" refers to anything relating to Africa (the continent) - in the case of Briebouw, a native African. In 1707 saying to a magistrate (i.e. the authorities) that you are not European would land you in trouble, as African natives were associated with the Khoisan and Black populace (also slaves). Nothing to do with the Afrikaans language. ruan (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in his context "Afrikaander" was used to refer to Coloureds and the slaves they brought over from the colony in Mauritius, including Biebouw's stepmother (who had also adopted the Dutch language). As noted in the text, his Coloured siblings were probably identified as such. The Khoisan and other groups like the Xhosa were at first - when contact was quite limited - simply designated "non-Christians" to separate them from the slave/burgher populace that were, and later "Hottentot" and "Kaffir", respectively. BTW this is a unique case of an ethnic community hijacking a term to the point that it exits its mainstream usage in Dutch.
The fact remains that most historians have accepted Biebouw and his declaration, whether indeed it was a drunken slip of tongue or just a rebellious teenager being brash, as that defining point of the nomenclature; therefore it passes WP:Fringe. Your opinion unfortunately does not. --Katangais (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have read your source material (Kaplan et al), quite an interesting read. However, it was most certainly not penned with only history in mind - check the introduction. Secondly it was produced in the 70's - since then there has been several watershed events. When I read your post above, I get the impression that you (and some other users) are giving history way too much weight. At the end of the day, when "defining" myself as an Afrikaner, any historian's point of view is ultimately irrelevant. The same applies to when referring to my mother-tongue, Afrikaans. and BTW, there are no sub-groups in the Afrikaner populace. Complete nonsense. ruan (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links[edit]

The WP:Linkfarm in the external links section should be trimmed. Some of the entries are simply linkspam, others represent fringe POVs and some are simply not specifically relevant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Afrikaner not equal to Dutch[edit]

It is baffling that somebody seems to have proposed replacing "Afrikaner" by "Dutch" throughout the article - after all that is said in the artice itself about the origin of the Afrikaner not only from the Netherlands, but also from France and Germany, and about their social identity that is clearly distinct from that of the Dutch. --Aflis (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly that would be an erroneous assertion to make, but to my knowledge no such proposal has been introduced. If we're discussing the edit by the anonymous IP that was clearly an act of vandalism that has been dealt with. --Katangais (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)