Talk:White South Africans

Huh?

"Roughly 60% of them speak Afrikaans as their mother language and about 39% speak English and/or another language."

That's roughly 99% for the total, not 100%. Do these statistics account for mute people, or did they include newborn babies?

63.215.27.199 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

About 1% of the whites speak some other language home than Afrikaans or English, for example such as German, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_South_Africa. Dr.Poison 12:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The article's stats, as originally written, still make no sense: "39% speak English and/or another language." Logically, this would include everything besides Afrikaans; it's an instance of the A or not A, and certainly needs to be corrected in some way.

- 63.215.27.199 05:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have edited it. As of now it is like this: 1% of the white population speaks some other language as their mother language, such as for example German, Portuguese or Greek. . Dr.Poison 13:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

- - - -

• Made some edits. Hopefully others who have more knowledge then me, would find it nice to edit and expanf this article. Iv'e tried to do my best and write my best English. Enjoy! Dr.Poison 13:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, it really helped the article's value. South Africa experienced a wave of Europeans arrived in the country's gold mining areas in the 1880's and 1890's. The majority of them are Anglo-British, but it included Welsh, Scottish, Irish, some North Americans and a few Australians, all were known to contribute in the growth of small mining gulches like Johannesburg and Pretoria, into major cities of a young promising, but racially strifen nation in the 20th century. Mike D 26 01:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I believe there are about 3 million Afrikaans speaking Afrikaners in South Africa. Doesn't this mean that the percentage of Afrikaans is 70% against 30% for English? Does somebody know more about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.100.44 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the 2001 census, there are approximately 2.54 million Afrikaans-speaking white people, and approximately 1.69 million English-speaking white people. The total white population numbered in that census approximately 4.29 million. Hence, 59% Afrikaans and 39% English. Where do you get the figure of 3 million from? - htonl (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten that there are Afrikaans speakers who are not white. Roger (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not forgotten that; I was looking specifically at the language statistics for white South Africans, since we are discussing the article entitled "White South African". Notice that I used the term "Afrikaans-speaking white people" and not the term "Afrikaans-speakers". - htonl (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently farms and gated communities to not receive census forms. There are somewhat 40,000 white owned farms, of which let's say the average has two parents and a child, thats already 120,000. And as for gated communities, thats a figure I don't know about. Furthermore, the white population increased by I think 300,000 from 2001 to the new 2007 estimate (4.6 million or something now). I am actually unsure about the number of whites/afrikaans/english in South Africa. 60% is definitley the right Afrikaner percentage, if not maybe 2 or more percent higher? Surely this small difference doesn't matter that much? Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The story about farms and gated communities being skipped has become a bit of an urban legend. Fact is, white people from gated communities and farms provided very few volunteers for the census. See http://www.statssa.gov.za/census01/html/theCount/count.pdf, page 23. This meant that a special "mop-up" period after the census had to be extended by an extra month to allow the primarily black volunteers to finish up the enumeration process. It took longer than expected because these volunteers were all working in areas very far from their homes, and ones that they found difficult to access. Stats South Africa went to great lengths to ensure that these areas weren't skipped, despite having very few volunteers from them. Additionally, if farms had been skipped, it would have affected both the counting of farm labour and farm owners. --HiltonLange (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can speak out of personal experience. At the time of the last census I was living on my parent's farm. The census volunteers came, visited all the houses on the farm, did their thing amd left. There was no difficulty, no locked gates, none of that bullshit. Those stories arose as an excuse for simple incompetence in some areas. "When accused of incompetence always blame the white man. You score double points if the white man is a 'boer'." Roger (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there was no problem on your parents' farm doesn't mean that there weren't problems on other farms, or in gated suburbs and high-walled properties. As Hilton points out, though, the enumeration period was specifically extended to handle these problems. - htonl (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Might I just remind you I only said that because I had read it somewhere. I will try and find the link but I have to also agree, my Great-Uncle and Aunt own a farm, and although they didn't tell me how, but they did do the census. Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What wasn't said on the article

I want to take note on small scale European immigration to South Africa, primarily into the cities, took place in the 1950's and 60's but slowed down in the 1970's. The majority of white European immigrants happened to be British when South Africa was part of the British commonwealth until it withdrew in 1961. Some immigrants came from Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, former Yugoslavia and the Netherlands, as well thousands of Arabs from Lebanon and Syria.

Usually the new South Africans as they were called assimilated into the white minority, but most immigrants joined South Africa's smaller English-speaking group for the reason that economic success required English skills, although are fluent in the Afrikaans language. The country has a sizable population of Chinese and east Asians, despite they encountered less overt segregation than south Asians in the days of apartheid.

However, the economic decline after the end of apartheid was unexpected and a large percentage of white South Africans left for good or temporarily in hopes to return or participate in a country rife with promise. The current government ever since tries to draw in more population of skilled workers and businessmen to boost the country's developed but crippled economy.

Post-apartheid South Africa is open for immigrants of all races, especially sub-saharan Africans came to South Africa in the 1990's and early 2000's to fulfill their dreams in the continent's most developed country, but the emigration of upper-class white South Africans to Europe or the US is an issue for the country wants to reverse the "brain drain" trend.

I believe the South African economy is going to improve in a couple of years and what I know is thousands-some American retirees actually move to South Africa for the kind of living standards the country is known for. Soon, every South African of race or creed will enjoy the post-apartheid prosperity if the nation ever accomplished that goal. I can see why South Africa hold such potential in the last century of high-paced industrial development.

Interestingly, there are many white South Africans who opposed apartheid and want to help make their country a better place for all of their people, but economic conditions must improve or they can't return to their homeland in terms of nationality if not indigenous to the country. South Africans aren't divided in race or color as much, but class divisions and geographic location in the distribution of rich and poor needs to be worked on. Mike D 26 01:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good information, thank you. Are you willing to write some of that information to the article? I know that there was many Lebanese who moved to South Africa during the civil war (or before). It is also interesting that there was many Scandinavians who moved during the early 21 century to SA, and made some kind of sucess as they could write and read. There was a documentery about that on Swedish Television last year ("Afrikafararna"). Good info and a happy new year! 18:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike - any refs for the economic decline after the end of apartheid? I'm not sure that that assumption is in any way correct and thus not tremendously keen to see it incorporated into this article in that form. This assumption wouldn't even have been correct several years ago. There are a couple of braking factors (infrastructure not being built fast enough and skills shortages) on the economy but other than that it's done a pretty good job of benefiting from the current emerging market upswing. Volatility of the currency shouldn't be confused with economic downturn; it can be related but in many cases, and particularly with smaller open economies, is just as likely to merely be speculative/money market related. Emigration after the end of apartheid was less related to actual economics and more related to perception/future expectation and social factors (eg. crime, general politics, advent of affirmative action and related expectations). Kit Berg (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC) ETA: Don't worry about it, I've just read your talk page so am assuming that no reply is forthcoming. Just as a heads-up for anyone else reading this, Mike's comments are stated as fact but many of them can be disproved relatively easily so please don't incorporate into the article without some kind of reference. Kit Berg (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Korean honorary white

Were they? I've often read that of Japanese and Taiwanese, but not Koreans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.101.167 (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason the Japanese and Taiwanese were honary were because they were both democratic states, surley S. Korea was too? This is also why the Chinese were treated the same as Blacks. Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Very Professional Language

"In recent years there have been high numbers of British expats relocating to South Africa. Among the British expat population, South Africa ranks as the 6th most popular destination and is ranked as the top destination amongst British retirees and pensioners."

Ah yes, it's a mark of a highly professional and useful encyclopedia to use slang or abbreviated words. gg wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.110.235 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Current trends

That must be the most funny thing I read on Wiki, "diseases that kill white people~, especially the old". RGDS Alexmcfire Alexmcfire (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What? Less whites, because there are more non-whites?

This section makes no sense.

In recent decades there has been a steady proportional decline in the white African population, due to higher birthrates among the non-white population of South Africa...

I guess what this is trying to say is that there are proportionally less whites because the percentage of non-whites has increased.

And this dubious, (unreferenced), statement is then followed by:

..., more immunity towards many diseases, especially those can kill whites, mostly the elderly and children, and help from the government.

I am not even going to guess what this is trying to say, what diseases specifically kill whites? And what help is the government giving in killing white people?

This whole section looks like a thinly-veiled attempt at blaming the current government for the death of whites in South Africa. FFMG (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Numbers number numbers

Okay the info box says "5,265,300 (2008) (11% of total population)", Demographics says "4.3 million Whites in South Africa (2007)" or maybe it's 4.8 and then Distribution says "9.2%". So I'm really confused. How many crackers you got in that box? :) --Leodmacleod (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with the Stats SA 2008 population estimates. On page 5 there's a table which gives low, medium and high estimates. The medium estimate gives 4.50 million whites out of a total population of 48.69 million. Alternatively, one can look at the Community Survey 2007 which gives 4 626 744 whites out of a total population of 48 502 066. (You have to use the "interactive data" facility to get that figure.) - htonl (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

J R R Tolkien?

Should J. R. R. Tolkien really be listed as a White South African? I mean, yes he was born in Bloemfontein, but his parents were English expats and he went back to England at the age of 3. - htonl (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, this has been discussed several times on Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien (see the archives) and the consensus there is that he should not be described as South African. I have removed him from this page. - htonl (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

see also...

I removed the Volkstaat-link. You could at best put that into the Afrikaner-article (even that is questionable), but not every white South African is a racially/linguistically separatist bigot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I was asked by Seb az86556 to look at the edit warring that is going on over this insertion. First of all, since multiple editors have expressed disagreement with it, Rgherbert needs to stop editing the article directly and engage in discussion here; this is what the talk pages are for.

As for my opinion about the edits itself...well, I also don't agree with it. I read the whole article that's given as a source (which was a painful endeavor, it's so poorly written), and did not see any mention at all of race. Furthermore, it's not really an acceptable source for the inflammatory statement given, since it only documents one case and doesn't say anything about a trend. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

---

My problem with the current edit is that it hides the sexist reality of prison rape; its victims are almost exclusively male. It is intellectually dishonest, not to mention morally and ethically reprehensible, to describe a crime with such a strong statistical gender bias in a gender-neutral manner. It would be considered unacceptable to do so if the genders were reversed. White South African women aren't being gang raped in prison — white South African men are.

The article cited at footnote 15 may not make specific reference to the race of the attackers, but it describes the way in which two men were quite literally thrown to the wolves in order to accommodate female detainees. The fact that the two game ranchers had been previously held separately from rape/murder suspects indicates the guards knew they were vulnerable, making their final cell placement decision all the more despicable.

In addition to being a systemic problem, the rape of men in jail/prison is exacerbated by gender segregation policies that often result in inappropriate cell placements of non-violent, vulnerable men. The gang rape of the game rancher has troubling implications for gender relations in a carceral context, given the way in which women were protected at the expense of men. As such, glossing over anti-male sexism by referring to prison rape of "white South Africans" in general is unacceptable.

I suppose my reference to black aggressors is superfluous since it is implied in the context of a paragraph on anti-white racism. That being said, it is well recognized that the phenomenon referred to here is the disturbing trend of white men detained for non-violent misdemeanours (e.g. traffic violations, licence/permit issues) being thrown into cells with violent blacks and subsequently raped/assaulted. While I can't cite them off the top of my head, there are numerous academic studies confirming the interracial nature of male prison rape in South Africa (as well as America and the Caribbean).

As I mentioned in one of my previous comments, discussion of male victims (in the context of gender) and black aggressors (in the context of race) is taboo, hence society's refusal to confront male prison rape, and in the South African context, its intersection with race. The double jeopardy of sexism and racism faced by white South African men in a carceral setting needs to be acknowledged.

I maintain my proposed revision offers the most intellectually honest account of the crime problem referred to in this section of the article:

"White South African men arrested and held in overcrowded cells on minor or spurious charges have taken legal action against the government, as many have been raped and assaulted by blacks (often rape and murder suspects) held in the same cell."

I believe the reference to black aggressors reiterates the fact that these are racially motivated gang rapes, and disagree that it is inflammatory. That being said, as the race of the aggressors is implied in the context of a paragraph on anti-white racism, I would accept the omission of the word "blacks" and submit the following instead:

"White South African men arrested and held in overcrowded cells on minor or spurious charges have taken legal action against the government, as many have been raped and assaulted by violent criminals (often rape and murder suspects) held in the same cell."

I will try and dig up some journal articles on prison rape in South Africa to add to the list of citations. For the time being, I propose the following as sources for my revision in addition to footnote 15:

http://dienuwesuidafrika.blogspot.com/2010/01/jail-rape-of-white-south-african-men.html

http://censorbugbear-reports.blogspot.com/2009/09/afrikaner-lawyer-threatened-with-racist.html

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2010/01/07/male-on-male-rape-in-prisons-and-police-cells/

http://www.servamus.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=58

On another note, since the Ministry of Safety and Security no longer exists, and since victims have often sued either the police, its overseeing ministry or both, I contend it is more appropriate to simply refer to "legal action against the government".

Ronald Guillermo Herbert Hermosillo -- Vancouver, British Columbia -- rgherbert@gmail.com 02:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgherbert (talk • contribs)

That's all immaterial. Wikipedia is interested in verifiability, not truth. Most of your sources are not reliable sources; the first three are blogs. As for the last one, most of its content appears to be about prisons in general, not about South Africa in particular, and it doesn't specifically contrast men and women (it is only talking about male prisons) so it can't be used to make any statements about a gender imbalance, and certainly not to make the sort of racially loaded claims you were making in your edit. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this explanation; first off, "dienuwesuidafrika" is a highly partisan blog which cannot count as WP:RS; same is true for "censorbugbear-reports". #3, while still a blog, does at least come from The Mail&Guardian, so would need further scrutiny. I am unfamiliar with servamus.com.; looking at the spelling of "Februarie," I suspect some unofficial Afrikaner-site that claims to represent the old South African Police-force (servamus et servimus).
That being said, if you can indeed find multiple statistics that show a trend rather than isolated events, that could be cited. But read WP:RS first. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think staing it in the context of "White South African men arrested and held in overcrowded cells on minor or spurious charges have taken legal action against the government, as many have been raped and assaulted by violent criminals (often rape and murder suspects) held in the same cell." as a South Africam, this is an overexagerration of the actual percentage, yes, there shouldn't be 1 person, but I would believ it is less than half a percent of people in prison... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.31.182 (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When I first came across this article the section on "Current Trends" and anti-white racism struck me as problematic, first and foremost, with respect to gender in the context of carceral rape. A gendered crime problem (prison rape) is being described in a gender-neutral manner, despite the fact that the source (footnote 15) makes specific reference to male victims. The phenomenon of prison rape as a form of gendered violence against men falls reasonably within the domain of common sense, along the lines of a proposition such as "the moon orbits the earth".

The next problem had to do with race. I noticed that the text of the article specifically avoided mentioning black aggressors. I concede that footnote 15 makes no reference to race, and that specifically describing prison gang rapes as being committed by blacks against whites may be tautological in the context of a paragraph on anti-white racism in a black-majority country. Alternative reports of the gang rape cited in footnote 15 not subject to the Orwellian censorship of mainstream South African media made it clear that the victims were white and the attackers were black. This was also reasonably implied by the Afrikaner ethnicity of the victims' names. While I maintain that my initial edition is not inflammatory in mentioning black aggressors as a statement of fact, I have agreed to omit specific reference to "black criminals", replacing it with "violent criminals" instead.

The other problems I noted with the two sentences immediately preceding footnote 15 had to to with efficiency and currency. The idea expressed therein does not warrant two separate sentences, and should be collapsed into one for the sake of efficiency of prose. In addition, the current edition makes reference to a no-longer-existent government ministry, resulting in a dated reference.

Having read the articles on Verifiability and Reliable Sources, I agree that none of my four aforementioned proposed references should be used as citations. I shall commit to compiling academic, peer-reviewed journal articles that describe prison rape in South Africa as a racial hate crime committed by black gangs against white male inmates to properly buttress the claims made in this section.

For the time being, I maintain that revising the current edition to make reference to white South African men (as opposed to white South Africans in general) is a verifiable edit given the mention of gender in the article cited at footnote 15, and that my concerns about efficiency and currency are more than reasonable. Furthermore, the current version contains a hyperlink to the Wikipedia article on rape which states: "For men, rape in prison has been a significant problem. Several studies argue that male prisoner rape might be the most common and least-reported form of rape, with some studies suggesting such rapes are substantially more common in both per-capita and raw-number totals than female rape in the general population."

In addition to maintaining the hyperlink to the article on rape, I shall add a hyperlink to the article on prison rape (thus providing further evidence of carceral rape as a sexist phenomenon) as follows:

"White South African men arrested and held in overcrowded cells on minor or spurious charges have taken legal action against the government, as many have been raped and assaulted by violent criminals (often rape and murder suspects) held in the same cell."

Last but certainly not least, the added qualifier of "spurious" to the description of minor charges/offences refers to the fact that, more often that not, in such cases the allegations either did not warrant incarceration or were unfounded to begin with (e.g. administrative errors regarding traffic infractions, unreasonable presumption of public intoxication, etc). There are numerous such accounts in the mainstream South African press over the past decade, all of which mention male victims but avoid reference to race altogether.

Ronald Guillermo Herbert Hermosillo -- Vancouver, British Columbia -- rgherbert@gmail.com 05:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgherbert (talk • contribs)

What's the problem Sebaz?

Sebaz86556 you repeatedly undo my edits, particularly this section. You offer no explanation other than calling it "crypto-racist" and "rant". If you can disprove any of the points please do and come and discuss them here. I have placed many verifiable references in there for you. Please be more meticulous and do not blanket erase people's contributions just because you don't like them.

""Whilst apartheid has left lasting scars, white South Africans have had many positive effects on South Africa and continue to do so. When van Riebeeck and his Dutch colonists arrived at the Cape they found a land centuries behind their own in terms of development. The whites brought to southern Africa enormous advances in science, agriculture, culture and medicine, amongst what was theretofore an unexploited wilderness of hunter-gatherer and pastoralist tribes. It is said that the only book Van Riebeeck brought with him to the Cape was the bible, and as such they were the first to spread Christianity too, which is now the dominant religion of all South Africans. He also brought the first vines and along with assistance from Huguenot immigrants, began the now burgeoning South African wine-making industry. They were the founders of large-scale industry and exploitation of the country's vast mineral wealth. Ensuing economic development of the country has made South Africa the wealthiest and most influential country in Africa and the 24th largest economy in the world.[6] Without the white South African, cities such as Pretoria, Johannesburg and Cape Town would simply not exist.[7][8] This is a source of contention today as the ANC regime seeks to rename many cities with African names, despite their being originally European settlements.[9] [10] [11] Furthermore, the state of South Africa would not exist, itself a union of Dutch/Afrikaner republics and British colonies. In general terms there continues to exist a wealth gap between white and non-white South Africans, a legacy of white-domination of the economy. However, there is little reason to believe economic development would have occurred at the same rate if whites had not settled the region, with a commensurate increase in black living standards.[12] Whites, once pictured as the "great white hunter" are now at the vanguard of wildlife conservation, attempting to preserve the country's natural wealth rather than exploit it.

Modern South Africa is a sport-mad country and all the major sports played in the country were white introductions. Rugby, most popular among the white population was adopted by Afrikaner prisoners of war during the Anglo-Boer war. Cricket and football were also British introductions and the latter has been adopted as the favourite sport of non-white South Africans. That South Africa was able to host the 2010 world cup is undoubtedly in large part thanks to the historical and economic legacy of white South Africans.""