Talk:Boers/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Boers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
No title
This is my first foray into Wiki Talk or editing, so I hope I'm doing good...
The silly quote didn't belong in wikipedia anyway so I removed it I also changed "trekked into and inhabited the Eastern Cape frontier" to "Entered and Occupied the Eastern Cape" which is a term could refer to a hostile encroachment or the peaceful one the pervious term insinuated. I don't know anything about this subject but the 'black actors' are certainally silent here and I don't think that's right. Even if the sources are limited, something should mention Xhosa presence in the area. This particular article is very shabby and should not a yardstick on the Eurocentricity of similar Wiki articles, but even more rounded ones give a similar sort of treatment. I was surfing around articles about the East India Companies and South Africa amongst others, and didn't find any good details about the interactions between black and white. Only when I got linked into an article that was actually about Shaka or another African leader did there seem to be actual acknowledgement that the actions of these people counted as 'History'
The thread starter is right to point out that this is a problem
If there are articles on wiki that do pass the "black empowerment" test I would like to see them included in the 'See Also' section of this article.
Courtesy of Gavla 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for your response - digressive though it was, your apparently heartfelt appeal did not fall on deaf ears. I return to it later.
Secondly, you are right that I got sidetracked; however, in my defence, it was the person who replied to me who emphasised the war bit in my critique when actually my main point extended far beyond the naming and description of the wars. I was simply rebutting his statement. But, to bring it back to my central argument:
There's a difference between focusing on a particular group's role in history and decontextualising their existence. Put differently, we must distnguish between telling of a select group's experiences in a certain period and context, on one hand, and telling a selective history, on the other. My challenge was and remains that this entry on the Boer does the latter. Rather than telling of the Boere in a balanced fashion it omits critical facts and actors in this account of history, inflates the honour of the Boere's endeavours, and thereby distorts their narrative.
For a start, indigenous is a controversial term - one can't just throw it in there in the way that it is used in this entry and expect all of us to turn a blind eye. By leaving out the Khoisan and Bantu people (i.e. the people who must then be 'pre-indigenous', if the Boere are indigenous as this account says they are) and not telling the story of how the Boere came to be in the position of being dispossessed by the British, thus making the Boere look like pure victims, it is not giving a full enough account of their story. The consequent characterisation of Boer identity in this account is therefore a misleading 'truth'. You might deem it inflammatory, but I would preface the opening line of this entry with something to the effect that the Boere descended from the (primarily) Dutch settlement on the (what was termed) 'terra nullius' of the Cape, which was seized from the Khoi people who inhabited it. This is not a contentious but veritable point and one should not expect the reader (who may be entirely ignorant of South Africa's history) to glean this from the fact that the name 'boer' is Dutch and/or from the trekboere's multifarious origins. This euphemistic manner of telling of their history's genesis is non-specific and inadequate for an encyclopedia, especially when the unsubstantiated claim is later unqualifiedly made that they are indigenous. Yet, were the Dutch's pre-installation more explicitly articulated, the British seizing the Cape from them would be better understood (even if less understandable). And, the recounting of all of the intra-cultural wars that followed amongst the Boere would then have a clear foundation.
Also, the Boere "who trekked into and inhabited the Eastern Cape frontier" did not do so in a vacuum - they moved into somebody else's (namely the Xhosa people's) backgarden. It is unconscionable to obliterate that fact from the Boere's history. While it is perfectly legitimate to tell a history that focuses on the Boere, it is spurious beyond all measure to tell that history in such a manner as to eviscerate their faux pas from their narrative. Far from requiring that the non-Boers be made central to this history, I am appealing for those groups against and upon whom the Boers exercised their agency and force to be described such that the story of the Boere is thereby given a fuller body and is rendered more true. South Africa has been riddled with the problem of incomplete/warped/false histories being told and retold. Let's not continue this trend.
Finally, I'm intrigued by your point that the white people are being oppressed by the ANC government. Hmmmm ... Because I am sympathetic to the feeling that this is what is happening, I want to preface my comments by saying that I appreciate why some of us might feel that way. Assuming that you mean by it that the economic and political policies of the ANC are averse to white people, I would like to refer you to an article written by a friend of mine, which partly addresses this very question (http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A354699). To quote an instructive portion thereof:
"Does this mean that affirmative action is based on blaming young people for things beyond their control? No. It is not a form of retribution. That would be legally and morally suspect. It is a form of justifiable and necessary redistributive justice, given the historical afflictions suffered by the black majority. It does mean, as an unintended consequence, that some white people will sometimes be second in line for a position in the acceptable name of social justice.
The consequence of this reality has been overstated. Statistics released this year by both the labour department and the Human Sciences Research Council tell a different story. Most senior management positions are still occupied by white men. Further, for every white person “losing” a job to a black candidate, many more black candidates also do not get the same job. In short, a skilled white person is still very much a sought-after commodity in the South African economy."
With the inordinate number of emigrant white South Africans, I wonder if it is this false notion that whites are now the disadvantaged ones that has made so many pick up and leave the beautiful African sun you describe. In response to this phenomenon, the term has (as I found out yesterday) been coined: "refugees from democracy". In its blatant irony, it conjures up a very sad image, don't you think? If only we could see democracy as the end of oppression, rather than the continuation of this destructive cycle.
163.1.173.229 12:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
If I may add my 2 cents...
It is understandable that someone would be mortified if a certain group in a poulation's role in history is not recognised.
But...
The article is about the Boer and his history. It recounts about what happend to them during the War.
Does it say that only the Boer suffered?
If the topic was "The Anglo-Boer War" and it then only showed the Boer as a party in the war with no other casualties/victims then all the comment of the other User(User:163.1.173.229) would be warranted. (Please note User, that this is NOT an attact on you, I do not intend to start a mud-slinging contest and I am NOT a racist)
The main problem in South African society is unwillingness of groups to accept each other, their history, their beliefs and their culture. Why should it always be THEM and US? The history is not all rosy. EVERYBODY in South Africa suffered during some time, and sometimes at the same time!
1. The Boer were oppressed by the British.
2. The Black component of society were oppressed by the National Party.
3. Currently the White component are being oppressed by the African National Party by various means, wheather anybody will admit it or not.
4. ?
This, my Fellow South African, is one vicious cycle and completely unneccesary. Don't you agree? One would have thought that somewere along the timeline a LEADER and a generation would have stood up and said: ENOUGH!!
As a 25 year old White AFRIKAANS Male FARMER, I say GROW UP and start behaving like adults who love your country! All our ancestors suffered, spoilt their guts, bled and sweat under the harshest conditions and watched the most magnificent sunsets in the world set upon the splendid African plains. They did it because they wanted to make a living and ensure a future for their children in the country they loved and where they wanted to be!
And we can still have that future... The only problem is going to be to convince people to stop blaming Apartheid/the British/Tony Blair/Robert Mugabe/the Cricket Team/Jake White for their current situation and start accepting responsibility for their own future.
It is easier to blame the world for our shortcomings than working on bettering ourselves. Unfortunately it is less productive and does not work.
I know that I strayed a little from the subject, but I hope that users will start respecting each other. Then it will not be neccesary to quarrel like old women with wet pants on the website of a brilliant Encyclopedia.
The world might just start laughing at South Africa. That will be the worst kind of insult to the Great Men (white, black, indian, coloured, blue, pink) that walked upon the soil of this wonderful country and gave their lives to build a country that is the envy of the rest of Africa.
"Allow me to bring to your attention the fact that they have officially been re-named 'the South African Wars'". It is fascinating that you would bring that up. Everywhere else in the world they are still referred to it as the Anglo-Boer wars - the current South African government seems obsessed with the name changing of anything that has remote white afrikaans connections. As for the name still being anglo-boer war - checked at the British Museum library today and I am correct. How many black people were killed in these so-called South African wars? It was the gold discovered by the Boers that prompted CJ Rhodes to invade the Boer republics. In plain english it was between the Boers and the British. Also courtesy of the British Museum. You cite one book in defense of your opinion but according to many sources wikipedia included "the black Africans were not considered to be hostile to the British, and provided a paid labour force." This is from the article Second Boer War. I did not insult you, I merely told you you were wrong and you were and you still are.
MJ Van Schalkwyk
Black empowerment? Very funny. Is that how you see including black people in a history in which they were more than silent images forming the backdrop (which this account barely pays them the 'respect' of being)? That's unfortunate. If anyone is being racist (or nationalist), I put it to you that it is yourself. On one hand, you try to sound well informed by pointing out that there is more than one black nation in South Africa. (True, as that is, not one of those nations is given a voice in this history, which entitles me to refer to them en bloc; and, in fact, contrary to your 'opinion', many were active - if unintentional - agents in the war ... that is a historical fact). On the other hand, you make an ill-informed comment such as that the Anglo-Boer Wars were not South African. Allow me to bring to your attention the fact that they have officially been re-named 'the South African Wars', in recognition of the fact that black people (and people of other races too, for that matter) inadvertently died fighting in the wars. Thus, from where we stand (as coevals), they were South African wars. Whether or not there was a named South African state at the time is of little but historical significance - certainly, it is of no current, descriptive value. That error is what I was trying to point out by my so-called insinuation. Incidentally, it is unfortunate that you would react so harshly to me, rather than in the scholarly spirit of discussion becoming of one who concerns oneself with the accuracy of an account in an encyclopedia. I ask that, next time, you check YOUR facts before you begin hurling all manner of insult at strangers.
P.S. You might want to take a look at the following book for support of my observations: The Boer War diary of Sol T. Plaatje : an African at Mafeking by Plaatje, Sol. T. (Solomon Tshekisho), 1876-1932 / edited by John L. Comaroff
163.1.173.229 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Please note user 163.1.173.229 that this is an encyclopaedia and not a black empowerment website. Please ensure that all future posts are based on fact and not offensive racist nationalism. There is more than one black nation in South Africa; not just blacks in general. Do not assume opinion as fact. Historically the Anglo-boer war is just that - Not the South African war as you so incorrectly insinuate. The South African Republic was a boer republic; there was no named South Africa before the boers.
17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)129.67.97.141
I am horrified at the silence of the black actors in this account! South Africa's history (and, I would think, by the same token, that of Afrikaner/Boer South Africans) cannot be viewed in isolation - it was not simply an engagement between the Brits and themselves. What about the "other" (I would argue MORE) indigenous groups who are herein dismissed, in vilification, with quotes that refer to them as 'savage' and references that denote them as faceless, potentially unjustified warmongers standing in the way of the noble cause of the Voortrekkers who they continue to massacre for no apparent reason. Have we lost sight of the fact that the Voortrekkers/Trekboere were in the midst of taking other people's land?!!! The 27,000 that died in concentration camps in the Second SOUTH AFRICAN War (as atrocious as their killing was) pale in comparison to the unnumbered who died in the wake of the carnage these Voortrekkers/Trekboers unleashed. This article makes the Trekboers out as lofty defenders of their land; what about the similarly courageous (black) defenders of THEIR land who are made to seem like a mere obstacle to the Boere's advancement?!!! This article picks South Africa's history up rather late, it would seem; only darting back occasionally to suit its needs - stepping over dead black bodies as it does so. I'm not saying revile the Afrikaners/Boere, but at least put things in full perspective. Give the black actors a voice in this history!!!
163.1.173.229 13:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Response to No Title: The Boers are indeed an indigenous group.
The term indigenous to describe the Boers is not controversial in the least. The Boer people & culture (including their language) all developed on African soil. I think what you are doing is confusing the term indigenous with aboriginal which are two different things. A given group can be indigenous while not necessarily being aboriginal. Remember: the Bantu populations are also not aboriginal to the region as the aboriginal people to the South African region are the Khoisan related groups of which only a small amount still exist mainly in the Northern Cape & Namibia. There are significant Khoisan genes among the Cape Coloured population including the Griquas / Basters / Cape Malays as well as fewer Khoisan genes among the Xhosas & the Boers & Afrikaners. The Boers have been called the White Tribe of Africa by the world at large & they have been recognized by neighbouring Bantus as a tribe in the past.
It would be entirely wrong to regard the trekboers as members of an exotic civilisation transplanted to the South African interior: these new-comers had become as much a part of Africa as its indigenous people and as the Bantu who, all unknown to them, were at the same time migrating southwards down the continent.
The trekboers are a product of Africa. They broke all connection with Europe and their homeland Holland. The Afrikaner and his language grew out of this movement, and this could be considered as another of the migrations of Africa but by a white African tribe this time.
Note: The Boers did not come from just Holland but from France / Belgium / Germany / Asia & others as well.
Boer Family, 1886. The Boers (Afrikaans for farmers) were of Dutch descent. Recognised by many Africans as a tribe, the were a semi-nomadic cattle owning people.
The Afrikaners are Africa's only true indigenous white tribe of Africa. They even speak their own language, Afrikaans formed over many years through the coming together of various cultures and nationalities in the Cape.
Note: The Afrikaners in actual context tends to refer to those of Wetstern Cape descent while the term Boer tends to refer to those who are of Trekboer & Voortrekker descent.
This tribe traces its origins to the first permanent settlement of Dutch colonists who arrived in 1652 and to the French Huguenots, Protestant refugees from catholic France who came to the country shortly thereafter.
Concerning the contention that the page does not address their migrations into the eastern Cape frontier: well for one thing that would be a subject much more suitable to the section on South African history as the purpose of this page is strictly describe the cultural / ethnic group of the Boers / their origins & their history. Their impact on other peoples (& vice versa) is something better dealt with in a history section. After all no one describes Anglo-Saxon invasion & the displacement (& absorption) of the native Celtic British peoples in the entry on the English people.
When the Boers moved in the eastern Cape frontier -while not done in a vacuum- one must also remember that what occurred was nothing different to how the Bantus moved into somebody else's territory as well. The Bantus moved into & dispossessed the Khoisan people too, but this fact is not deemed necessary to mention when strictly discussing the origins & nature of the various Bantu groups. Furthermore: the Boers did not encounter the Xhosas until a full 120 years after their first European originated ancestors arrived at the Cape. When the Boers encountered the Xhosas it was at the furthest end of the eastern Cape frontier.
While you might want to call the Boers move into the east Cape frontier a "faux pas" one must remember that virtually every other group in the world has committed similar "faux pas"s as well. There is hardly a single ethnic group in the world who has not at some point in their past moved onto another person's land & committed "faux pas"s in this regard.
True social justice would not discriminate in any fashion for any reason. The new form of discrimination going on is not social justice except perhaps in an Orwellian context.
No one seriously believes that the Xhosa nationalist regime running South Africa has any real commitment to democracy: otherwise all of those DA (the liberal opposition) supporters who were seen on news reports all around the world would have been much more represented in the Parliament. The laughable results of the ANC receiving a suspiciously convenient & unheard of 70 % of the vote while the popular campaign of the DA only incredibly received a ridiculous 12 % of the vote stands as testament to the lack thereof.
While you might just be able to get away with accusing the Trekboers of "taking other peoples' land" (in fact the Boer ethos forbids the claiming of other people's lands & the clashes between them & the Khoisan was no different to other peoples inter struggles among competing groups) it is much harder to make that inflammatory claim against the Voortrekkers as the Voortrekkers purposely trekked around the densest Bantu populations (the went the long way around the Xhosas) & specifically trekked into de-populated lands to the north of the Orange & Vaal Rivers. The Boers under Piet Retief (French surname) even acquired a treaty from Dingaan the Zulu king to settle the unoccupied land south of Zululand. Furthermore: the Boers were allied with the Rolong (West Sotho) & the Griquas (Boer / Khoi ethnic group with Tswana admixture) during the era of the Great Trek.
Do you have a single shred of evidence to back up your offensive assertion that the Boers were more brutal to their neighbours than the British were to them. Remember: the Boers fought wars of self defense. While Shaka on the other hand fought wars of aggression & committed a massive genocide against neighbouring tribes in the region.
This article makes the Trekboers out as lofty defenders of their land; what about the similarly courageous (black) defenders of THEIR land who are made to seem like a mere obstacle to the Boere's advancement?!!!
First of all: the various Bantu tribes did in fact try to defend their land -from Shaka & his genocidal campaign -yet all I ever hear from you is how the big bad humble pastoral Boers are somehow the only group to have ever clashed with Bantus in the region. The Bantus were not an "obstacle" to the Boers' "advancement" as the various Bantu groups remained free & independent until the British came & conquered them as the British did indeed see both them & the Boers as an obstacle to their imperial advancement which claimed far more lives than can ever be accused against the Boers.
The problem here is that you are illogically arguing that non Boer people should be "given a voice" in an article that has nothing to do with them. Taking this new standard into practice: When will the Celtic people then be given a voice in the English people article? This is just pure anti Boer hypocrisy once again. Furthermore: do you know how many dead Black bodies the various Bantu groups stepped over? A lot more than you could ever accuse the Boer of. Shaka's genocide claimed the deaths at least more than one & a half million people. Let's not forget the many dead White bodies as well particularly all of those unsuspecting civilians (including many children) Dingaan killed during the Bloukrans Massacre for which the town of Weenen is named after.
Furthermore: I am troubled by your one dimensional use of "Black" here as the people you refer to are not a single block but are comprized of many different ethnic groups & nations. Just as there are also numerous ethnic groups among the so called Coloured & White groups as well.
Wow this is a terrible article. Someone. Please. Fix it.
The article states that there is a difference in meaning depending on pronunciation. Is this correct or is it just written in a confusing way? If it is correct, than some extra explanation might be in place.
Boers were also the natives of southern Africa with Dutch decendence. Apart from the spelling error, is this how it is (or was) seen in Britain? In my edit I've assumed that, but I'm not sure, so please comment (or correct). Also, I've added what I knew from the top of my head, but this may easily be incorrect and certainly isn't complete.
DirkvdM July 8, 2005 13:44 (UTC)
- The more I look at this article the more I am persuaded that the second and third paragraphs should be cut. The second paragraph sounds like pure personal opinion; the third paragraph is a précis of general South African history and duplicates several other articles. Thoughts? Humansdorpie 13:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
References
It's great to see that the article has been expanded, but assertions are presented without any supporting justification. In an article like this it would be really helpful to get verifiable references for some of the propositions - otherwise it is in danger of becoming a soapbox. Humansdorpie 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The Boerevryheidsstigting (BVS) is a relative large group in SA who is a strong proponent of the Afrikaner/Boer difference. I added a news article to the referneces about this. The BVS has a webpage http://www.boerevryheid.co.za, but is predominantly Afrikaans, would it be okay to put the site as a reference(/external link) as well? There is a document called the Majuba Declaration, which is also relevant to the above mentioned news article, but I believe that is also only available in Afrikaans (http://www.boerevryheid.co.za/files/MAJUBA_DEKLARASIE.pdf)
The statement saying that "boor" still means churlish etc in English is misleading; it makes it sound like the basis for the word refers to the Boers in the article. In fact, it just refers to the fact that boer in Dutch means farmer, and so derived to mean someone with "farmer-like" poor manners. In the same way, churlish/churl comes from the German word "karl" which also means farmer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacques.viviers (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
- Welcome aboard Jacques Viviers. I appreciate your recent contributions & I like your name due to the fact that they are both of French origin & I understand that it a somewhat common or popular Afrikaans name. -Like other common or popular Afrikaans (first & sur)names of French origin such as: Etienne Le Roux / Louis Le Grange / Jacques Duplessis / Francois Pienaar / Jacques Cronje & Pierre Viljoen to name just a few other notable examples. I am fascinated with the French Huguenot influence on the Boer & Afrikaner peoples. This influence not only gave the Afrikaans speakers their numerous French names but also strengthened their Protestant religious outlook & even shaped the Afrikaans language to a notable degree as well.
Concerning an Acurate Account of the Ethnic & National Origins of the Boers.
The following wording "are descended mainly from Dutch Calvinist" gives an erroneous impression because the fact of the matter is that the Boers are not "descended mainly from" Dutch Calvinists.
The wording concerning the cultural /ethnic origins of the Boers creates the erroneous impression that the Boers are mainly descended from just the Dutch ancestors when the fact of the matter is that the Dutch component of the Boers only accounts for about 35 % to 40 % of their ancestral origins. The Boers are in fact mainly a rather homogenous mix of Dutch / French / German & Frisian with significant Flemish / Walloon & other origins.
The French origins of the Boers accounts for at least 15 % to as much as 24 % of their genes. Visit this link to read more about the French Huguenot ancestors.
The German origin of the Boers accounts for at least 30 % to 35 % of their genes.
Therefore it is factually incorrect to assert that the Boers are "primarily" or "mainly" descended from Dutch Protestants as this erroneous pronouncement overlooks & omits the true / full & complete picture. It would be similar to claiming that the English are "mainly" descended from Angles while neglecting to point out that they are in fact mainly a mixture of Angles & Saxons -as well as Jutes- or even similar to claiming that the French are "mainly" descended from Romans while neglecting to point out that they are also significantly descended from the Gauls.
Research by J. A. Heese indicates that as of 1807, 36.8% of the ancestors of the White Afrikaans speaking population were of Dutch ancestry, 35% were German, 14.6% were French and 7.2% non-white (of African and/or Asian origins).
The above indented text is posted in the Afrikaans language section.
Useful source
I do not have it right here, but if someone wants to fix the article I remember a couple of very interesting chapters in John Reader's Africa: A Biography of the Continent, ISBN 067973869X. Among other things, the Boers settlers relied a lot on black populations to acquire knowledge necessary to survive, and constantly moved towards their survival strategies. They were in conditions of such poverty and illiteracy, before the gold rush, that had the rush not happened they might have merged with the local black populations or become the only white native population of sub-saharian Africa.
Well in fact the Boers were & are the White native population of sub-Saharan Africa. This is an obvious & confirmed fact. See the above quotes I posted concerning this matter in response to the author of the No Title quasi rant.
What does the Sir Conan Doyle quote have to do with Nationalism?
A long quote from Sir Conan Doyle appears in the Nationalism section. The quote praises the Boers, but has nothing to do with Nationalism. I'm removing it. Patiwat 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it should be removed, but remains. For no other reason than you are not allowed quotation in a wikipedia article-- that's what wikiquote is for. Anyway, a completely subjective account of the Boers by a famous nineteenth century English novelist has no place here. 81.170.97.185 22:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
All white Afrikaners like to be called Boers
I've known about 7 or 8 Afrikaans- speaking whites from SA and I'm not familiarised with all of the areas but they all liked to be called Boers, so surely it's just their word for themselves and it's nothing to do with which part of the country you come from.
86.27.49.214 10:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Not all White Afrikaners like to be called Boers for the main reason that most of them are descended from those who were not part of the specific Boer designated group.
There are even a number of Boers descendants who do not like to be called Boer due to the perception of it having oddly become a "derogatory" term but mainly as a result of having been brought up to view themselves as Afrikaners.
Concerning the point that the term is not geographically specific: this is because the Boers have moved all over the country since the past one hundred years because they shared a common State with the Cape based Afrikaners & the English not to mention the rest of the multi racial / cultural population.
The Boers are descended from the Trekboers who settled into the eastern Cape region beginning in the 1690s & into the 1700s. They were generally poorer which was one of the main reasons they began trekking away from the Western Cape.
The ones who remained in the Western Cape were often called the Cape Dutch & were generally more affluent than the Trekboers. The vast majority of the Voortrekkers were descended from the Trekboers who had settled into the eastern Cape as nomadic pastoralists.
All White Afrikaans speaking people born at the Cape were originally loosely referred to as Afrikanders. Those in the frontier would soon be called Boers while those in the western Cape often known as the Cape Dutch would later adopt the term Afrikaner (without the "d"). It was the Cape based Afrikaner who ran Apartheid South Africa due to their larger numbers over the Boers of republican & Trekker descent.
The Afrikaners were instrumental in co-opting & assimilating quite a significant number of Boers after the devastation of the second Anglo-Boer War due mainly to the destitution of the Boer people who flocked to the cites in search of employment as their farms & livelihood were destroyed by the British & the fact that almost half of the total Boer child population died in the British concentration camps.
The cultural difference between the Afrikaner & Boer can best be summarized as the following: the Afrikaner is neo colonial & tends to view all White Afrikaans speakers as being all part of the same group regardless of cultural distinctions while the Boers are republican / independent oriented & view themselves as a distinct & separate entity from the greater White Afrikaans population as they are descended from the republican Boers & the Voortrekkers who were themselves descended from the frontier pastoralists who trekked away from the Western Cape centuries ago where the ancestors of those who would control the later emerging Afrikaner designation remained. This is an essential component to understanding the different outlooks within the greater White Afrikaans speaking population.
- Many — if not most— white Afrikaans speaking South African might find it quint or humorous to be called a "Boer" by a non-South-African, but they definitely would not like to be referred to that by another South-African. This is because the term no longer identifies a specific ethnic group and has taken on specific political connotations. It is very difficult for any such South African to definitively identify their specific ancestors as original Boer and not Voortrekker, Cape Dutch or even British so to claim to be a "Boer" is more of a cultural or political statement than anything else. --Deon Steyn 07:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- As you can see from Ron7's explanation above, it's a matter of choice or how you view yourself, i.e. a political/cultural. To use a rough example from the United States, it is similar to the term Yankee which might be used to refer to all Americans by a foreigner, but internally it refers to different people none of whom make up a distinct racial or ethnic group. --Deon Steyn 07:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Black ancestry
I've taken a big interest in white South African culture and I've heard unconfirmed rumours that lots of Boers' who're very proud of being white have had ancestors who have mixed out of the white race, into Indian, Oriental or Native African ethnic groups but over the 350 years there's no facial features which denote it any longer in them. Is that true?
86.27.49.214 10:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well a number of reports about researchers who have found this to be the case would appear to confirm this. Though there appears to be very little "Black ancestry" (as your title erroneously states) since much of their non White ancestors were Indian / Malay or Khoisan. Not Bantu or other Black group.
I'm sorry, I support the cause of the Boervolk and their right to a white, Afrikaans- speaking homeland but it seems that they can't really talk about Boer supremacy if they're part non- white, I heard an allegation against Boervolk leader Eugene Terre'Blanche that his ancestry is impure, probably unfounded but perhaps we should look into it because as in any place where settlers have re- located breeding outside of the community will occur.
82.20.49.215 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I support Boer independence too for those who want it. But: What difference does it make whether the Boers are part non White to their inherent right to self determination? How is their struggle to re-acquire their independence (which was revoked in 1902 with the Treaty of Vereeniging to which they have been struggling since 1795) dependent upon or in any way lessened due to having a small percentage of non White genes? I would think that if anything it would only strengthen the case of the Boer iredentists as it is a demonstration that they are even more ethnically a product of their cultural beginnings at the Cape.
What do you mean by Boer "supremacy"? The Cape based Afrikaners to this day still think that they are "superior" to the alleged "un-cultured" (they should talk considering their role in the partial destruction of Boer culture) Boers of Trekboer & Voortrekker descent. The Afrikaners even have derogatory terms for the Boers of frontier & republican descent. The Boers who are attempting to re-acquire their independence are not doing so based on any claim to any sort of alleged "supremacy" but rather under their inherent right to self determination which is a matter they are entitled to under international law.
This talk about "impure ancestry" is a meaningless distraction to the true nature of what the Boers are facing & have been facing for much of their 3 centuries long existence. So what if they have some Indian / Khoi & Malay genes? It does not make them any less Boers. This would just demonstrate even more that they are the product of a rich heritage. The Boers would still be Boers regardless of what their genetic heritage is. The right of the Boerevolk to be independent again is something that they are entitled to under international law. The Boers were after all independent in the past & their major republics were recognized by Britain / the Netherlands / France / Germany / Belgium & the United States.
What is the point of bringing Eugene Terre'Blanche into this? A lot of people are of the view that he was an obvious foil to the reemerging Boer nationalist movement by being conveniently placed in order to attempt to give it a bad name. The AWB did more to discredit a true Boer nationalist revival than just about anything else. If the old South African government did not invent them they might as well have as they benefited enormously from their existence. It made the government's work all the more easier.
There were other lesser known Boer nationalist movements which did not stress race & were not flirting with the extremist concepts of his confusingly named organization. Just who was he fighting for anyway: the Boer of the Afrikaner? Who funded him & gave him that occult based Triskelion symbol -which is similar to an ancient Polish heraldic device: (see third image third row third symbol) for his then militant organization? The triple seven is a high occult number.
Manner: The AWB was riddled with agents, informers and agents provocateur. The "invasion" of the black homeland was ill-conceived, badly planned and disastrously implemented. . .
Coetzee: The question should rather be asked where the money came from to enable a relatively poor official of the former Secret Police to set up a paramilitary apparatus such as the AWB, with its (Nazi-like) banners, uniforms, etc. Someone should study precisely what the AWB did where and when and divert the activities to a budget. Then one should evaluate the situation [to see] whether it was reasonable to expect such huge funds coming from individual sources. Another in-depth research should be done on exactly what the government's secret project to discredit right-wing politics in SA . . . precisely entailed.
Botha: The AWB was a government setup from the start to open the gate for negotiations with the ANC and discredit the conservative Afrikaner by linking him with Nazism. It was the most brutal and destructive mechanism to destroy the Afrikaner resistance ever devised in the history of the Afrikaner people by the left-wing National Party ministers of the time.
Not just to discredit the so called conservative Afrikaner but the Boer of Voortrekker & republican descent in particular. Remember: the largest support for Boer irredentism was in the regions where the former Boer republics once existed. The AWB only began growing when they began espousing the resurrection or restoration of the Boer Republics as Robert van Tonder had been advocating since 1961. At any rate the AWB had very little support even among the Boers of republican descent. Furthermore: Conservative Afrikaners were supporting the Conservative Party or the HNP for the most part.
Not quite an accurate account. There was indeed Boer Repression.
The following is not quite accurate.
Over time the obvious differences between Cape Afrikaner and Boer would subside and the terms "Boer" and "Afrikaner" would eventually be used as synonyms.
It was only after the assassination of Hendrik Verwoerd, the subsequent disintegration of the National Party and the slow dismantling of apartheid, that the more conservative of the Afrikaners (some the decendants of the Boers) started referring to themselves as modern Boers.
Some of these modern Boers[1] would argue that they were forced to accept the apartheid establishment and that they were suppressed whenever they attempted self-determination, however, the absence of "Boer"-parties in a political system where all white adults could vote, speak to the contrary[2].
For one thing there was a Boer political party founded in 1986 known as the Boerestaat Party whose leader Robert van Tonder began advocating for the restoration of the Boer Republics as early as 1961 when he left the National Party to pursue this ideal. Furthermore: the Boers were indeed suppressed & out right repressed whenever they attempted self determination particularly during the Boer Rebellion (also known as the Maritz Rebellion) of 1914 when a number of Boer Generals attempted to restore the Boer Republics during an armed rebellion against the Afrikaner-British government of Louis Botha. Furthermore: while many were indoctrinated out of referring to themselves as Boers: there were indeed still quite a lot who continued to refer to themselves as Boers during the 20th century particularly in private among themselves.
I agree, watch the Leader his driver and the driver's wife, a Nick Broomfield film about the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging and you'll see lots of references to Boers and the Boervolk.
81.107.214.71 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Pronunciation
Maybe someone more familiar with the IPA can put up a pronunciation thingie for the Afrikaans pronunciation. I believe that /bur/ does the job, where the r is an Alveolar trill and the u is pronounced as in through (maybe a bit shorter?), but I'm not an expert on the subject. Unfortunately boer is rendered as boar by most well-meaning English speakers, which is not how us boere would say it...
- (IPA pronunciation: /bur/, which is pronounced b-ooh-r, where the r is an alveolar trill as in Spanish and Italian)
Too wordy? --Lionelbrits 16:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Leonard Van Os.'s learn yourself Afrikaans it's borr, however lots of Western Transvaalians pronounce it as 'burr'. So let's settle with the standard Afrikaans pronunciation.
82.2.88.113 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but I couldn't find a reference for this. Is it a parody?--Lionelbrits 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the text in the edit box.
The text in edit box of a of non registered user of April 16 presumes & erroneously states: "they are not "indigenous" to Africa the way actual Africans are. Afrikaners are Europeans mainly descended from the Dutch, and this is specified" asserting a number of falsehoods.
Fist of all the White Afrikaans peoples are not "mainly" descended from the Dutch. I have gone over this before in an earlier post. See more above. I know some of those links I posted erroneously stated this, but they are wrong as other sources have pointed out the multi national origins of the Boer people. The French Huguenot origins accounts for up to 25 % of their roots. The German origins accounts for at least 30 % of their roots. Their Dutch origins accounts for less than 40 % & likely about just 35 % of their roots. Furthermore much of that was Frisian & not even Dutch. I posted the links to demonstrated that they are an indigenous people that were formed on African soil. I regret that the links in question presume that they are only descended from Dutch people as the historical record clearly notes that they are descended from large number of French & German people among others as well.
Next. The White Afrikaans population particularly the Boers are indeed indigenous to Africa. Once again I have covered this too in the past. While it is true that they are not as senior in their indigenous status to Africa as other Africans, they are still nonetheless an indigenous group to Africa by virtue of the fact that they were formed as a group on African soil. Even their laguage was formed on African soil. They did not exist in Europe then were suddenly transplanted to Africa. The ancestors of the Boers were of diverse national origins & were dumped at the Cape by the VOC. The Boer & other Afrikaans related cultural groups were formed as a direct result of living on the African continent.
Next. The White Afrikaans peoples most especially the Boers are not Europeans in any true sense of the word. The Boers broke all their ties to Europe early on & are the direct result of a home grown cultural group which sprang up on African soil. They even began referring to themseves as "Africans". This is the main reason as to why they have been referred to as Afrikanders & Afrikaners as this was the Dutch & Afrikaans word for African.
Next. The Boers are a distinct group from the Afrikaners. The term Afrikaner refers to a anyone born in Africa who speaks Afrikaans as a native language. It is a term that was appropriated by the Cape Dutch of the Western Cape during the latter half of the 19th cent at a time when the Boers had long since developed into a separate & distinct group. The Cape Dutch were the cultural group who remained in the Western Cape when the Trekboers began trekking away beginning in the late 17th cent. The Boers are the descendants of the Trekboers & frontier Boers: those who trekked away from the Cape Dutch.
Furthermore: what does "actual Africans" mean? Are you implying that some Africans are more African than others? Are some people more American than others? Is that not an out-of-line sentiment? I doubt anyone could get away with claiming "actual Europeans" in similar vein.
The fact that the Boers are not as senior as Africans as other Africans does not negate the fact that they are still Africans nonetheless. After all asserting that they are compatriots of another distant continent despite their long often hard won history of being in Africa & as Africans even referring to themselves as Africans is simply just not an accurate account. After all: how can they possibly still "be Europeans" after all these centuries as Africans in Africa? Most White Afrikaans people have never even been in Europe & have ancestors who have never been connected to Europe going back for centuries. Some "Europeans". These people are Africans who happen to be White. No one would call White Canadians or White Americans "Europeans" so why would anyone call White Africans "Europeans" particularly when they have a 350 plus year long history as belonging to the African continent.
Although your argument, Ron7, that they are indigenous because they were formed, as a people seperate to their Dutch, Frisian, French and German forefathers, on African soil, however at the same time it's almost discreditting blacks' right to be recognised as the people who have no prior history to being on Africa. The Boers are still recognised as being those who emigrated to Africa from Europe, similarly, many Americans only have American culture as the backbone of their life, yet they are still recognised as being, in terms of indiginousness, second to Native Americans.
82.14.71.101 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a complex issue. For one thing you must remember that the aboriginal people of South Africa: the Khoisan groups have largely disappeared & only exist in small numbers & in isolated pockets mainly in the Northern Cape / Namibia & in western Botswana. The Black people you refer to are just as much settlers to the region as the White people since they migrated from central Africa. See more at Bantu Migration. Furthermore: a most significant point to remember is that the Boers became a people long before they even encountered a Black group -ie: the Xhosas on the eastern Cape frontier around 1775. The Boers did not met up with any local Black groups until over 120 years after their first ancestors arrived at the Cape. While the ancestors of the Boers did encounter & displace the yellow-brown skinned Khoisan groups at the Cape: one must remember that so did the Bantus encounter & displace Khoisan groups when they entered into southern Africa. This fact is important to remember since it means that both White & Black groups developed on Khoisan lands. The Boers in the west & the Bantus in the eastern region. Note that when the Europeans arrived in the 17th cent that the Bantus had not penetrated into the Western Cape (due to the Kalahari Dessert barrier) as there were still thriving Khoisan groups living there were they had been decimated in the northern & eastern regions of modern day South Africa. Also: the Bantus did not start coming to permanently settle in the Western Cape until well into the 19th cent when it was already under British control.
Now to the matter of the indigenous status of the Boers. You assert that just because most of their distant ancestors came from Europe -remember some of their ancestors came from Asia (Indians & Malays) & Africa (Khoisan)- that they are not indigenous despite all the evidence demonstrating the contrary as per classification of ethnic & cultural groups. I will demonstrate how the Boers are indigenous by drawing your attention to some basic facts & making the obvious comparison.
The White people in Europe are considered indigenous to Europe despite the fact that their distant ancestors came from Asia. No one asserts that just because the Proto-Indo-European people invaded & displaced the aboriginal people of Europe -also known as Old Europeans- that they are still just Asians & that they are not now indigenous Europeans because it "infringes" on the rights of the Basques. See more at Proto-Indo-Europeans. The Indo-Europeans are now considered just as indigenous to Europe as the Basques & other aboriginal Europeans. Though they are obviously not as senior as Europeans as the Basques or others. This is exactly my point & the case with the Boers of southern Africa. Since people develop new cultures & identities in their new environment & often assimilate or absorb other nationalities or races.
Furthermore: the aboriginal people of the Americas are not called Asians just because their distant ancestors once came from Asia. Therefore the Boers can not be considered European just because most of their distant ancestors once came from Europe.
The fact that the distant ancestors of the Boers came mainly from Europe (by decree of the VOC) hundreds of years ago is irrelevant to the fact that they are now a part of the African landscape & as such as are recognized as an indigenous people. I have posted four links which note the indigenous nature of the Boer people. One link specifically uses the term indigenous. Authors have noted that they broke their ties to Europe early on (just as the Proto-Indo-Europeans broke their ties to Asia) & became an African people (even living in about the same nomadic pastoral impoverished conditions as the Khoisans & Bantus) who were severed from Europe & tied only to the African continent. The Proto-Indo-Europeans became a European people(s) just as the ancestors of the Boers would become an African people(s).
When people assert that the Boers are somehow not indigenous (despite the historical record): they make it sound as though they are simply on a vacation in Africa to be returning shortly to Europe. Which of course is pure nonsense. The ancestors of the Boers were here to stay which lead to an amalgamation of those dumped at the Cape & the emergence of a unique culture & language all founded on African soil. Remember also that even when Boers & other White Afrikaans people do return to Europe: they are strangers in a strange land & do not speak any of the local languages -aside from an accented English (though not all can speak it) as their language is its own language which changed dramatically from the Dutch dialects of Europe. Afrikaans has strong & noticeable Oriental influences from words to accent & cadence. How long does a culture have to be in an area before it is considered a native part of the landscape? The Boers have been in Africa longer than most Americans have been in America & longer than most Australians have been in Australia. The Americans & Australian are also mostly White yet they are not called Europeans & are even considered part of the local landscapes. There appears to be a double standard.
I would agree, and indeed you have bolstered your case, with the reference to Americans and Australasian Whites, they even speak a language spoken in Europe (a European connection of sorts), which Boers don't.
However I would like to point out that your argument with regards to their Native African and Malay heritage, it's virtually irrelevant, because their European roots are those that have impacted their appearance, race and culture, rather than the Asian and Native African ones, I believe Black and Asian heritage accounts for 5-7 % of Afrikaner ancestry.
The issue of Black and Asian heritage in the article needs to be properly addressed, since many Boers were too poor to afford slaves (hence their trek to find new land), it's unlikely that they will have even 5- 7% of non- White heritage, considering that unlike the Cape Afrikaners they wouldn't have had non- Whites around them. Although Paul Kruger had confirmed Black ancestry I believe, and, I know that this is original research (which is inadmissable on wikipedia), however we could look further into it, I've noticed that quite a large proportion of Boer/ Afrikaners have a darkish complexion (in some cases it may be a result of not having sun cream, however in a largeish amount of cases it looks like their natural skin tone). Also they seem to have broad nostrils (which both Malaysians and Blacks have), which is out of character for normal Dutch, Frisian, German and French people. This issue should be investigated when determining how to write an informative and evidence- supported report on their ancestry.
Well whether their partial non White roots is considered relevant or not is besides the point. Considering that it is a significant (though small) part of their heritage & that this is an encyclopedia therefore: mentioning it would certainly be merited. While their European roots might have impacted them more: there non European roots did have a minor impact. You erroneously suggest that a lack of slave ownership prevented the Boers from having non White spouses, but you forget that the main reason why the early or nascent Boer men took non White spouses in the first place was due to a shortage of White females at the Cape. Therefore: it is probable that even many Boers who did not own slaves still visited the slave quarters in order to find a spouse as early records at the Cape show that a number were taking non White spouses. Also: remember that all this happened rather early on in the formation of the Afrikaans peoples -so it was not just a matter of "having" or not "having slaves around" as it was simply the nature of the time. There is more concerning this interesting topic at the following link.
The author of the page is an Afrikaans person. With a quintessential Afrikaans name: Andre van Rensburg. This is why even though the White Afrikaans people became two distinct cultural groups -they are still ethnically quite similar as the amalgamation process happened quite early on before the Trekboers began to trek into the frontier.
You seem much more educated in these areas than myself however there is numerous ethnic groups that contributed to the Boer people, however while your figures, relating to French, German, Frisian and Dutch origins may be true for the Boer people as a whole, it will probably swing heavily to a particular ancestry in particular regions, i.e. the immigrants went from one village in Germany or Holland, or wherever as the case may be, and settled in a particular area, where their descendants will still live, so you'll probably have mostly Dutch, and mostly French villages, it's called 'chain immigration' I believe.
82.2.88.113 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Population?
Does anyone know approximately what number of the White, Afrikaans speakers in Southern Africa are Boers as opposed to Afrikaners?
I'd have said, judging by estimates of the population of the remaining Boer communities that it's under 100,000 (considering only the small farming communities in the Western parts of SA are still 'Boer').
86.31.153.156 18:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There should be approx 1 million Afrikaans speakers of Boer descent out of a total White Afrikaans population of at least 3 million. I say Boer descent as I am aware that some have stopped calling themselves Boers since the 1930s after the Afrikaner Nationalists -based in the Western Cape- launched programs aimed at co-opting as much of the Boer population as possible. Needless to say: these programs were not totally successful as there have always been many who have continued to view themselves as Boers. This statistic is even cited in the link to the World Net Daily interview I posted above concerning a different matter. Furthermore the farming communities which are still Boer are in the central & northern parts.
There is only one big difference: In South Africa, there are about 4 ½ million whites. Of these there must be about 3 million Afrikaners, and of these about 1 million Boer Afrikaners, the offspring of those few thousand untrained farmers who took on the British Empire.
The fact is I arrived at about this same statistic myself years ago as I know that the Voortrekkers represented about 25 % of the total White population at the Cape & have made allowances for the fact that some Boers remained in the Eastern Cape: though most of them trekked eastwards & northwards.
Actually your premise of "chain immigration" does not apply very much at all for the simple reason that the VOC made sure to intersperse the French Huguenot refugees & other arrivals among the existing community which greatly facilitated an amalgamation quite early on of the various groups. Furthermore: the White Afrikaans group was founded in a small location: mainly around Cape Town / Stellenbosch / Paarl & Franschhoek -where many of the French arrivals were initially settled before being scattered- which are all located in close proximity of each other in the same general region of the Western Cape.
When the VOC arrived they only controlled a very small area. One must remember that the VOC had no intention of starting a colony as their main goal was to create a victual station to supply passing ships. The reason why the size of the Cape began growing was the result of the VOC attempting to control the Trekboers as they increasingly moved away from the Western Cape. The White community became a permanent feature once they were released from their contracts on Feb 21 1657 & had to continue farming in order to survive by selling their produce to the VOC. The VOC did this in order to cut costs.
The Boers developed into a distinct people from this situation as they did not have the protection of the State & had to fend for themselves. They became a people long before the arrival of the colonial powers in Africa as the VOC was not strictly speaking a colonial power but a private multi-national corporation. A corporation which dropped their servants off at the Cape who would then in turn soon form a distinct homegrown people later known as the Boer nation.
When the Trekboers began trekking away from the Western Cape in the late 17th cent due mainly to their poor economic status & their desire to be free of VOC control: immigration was already beginning to taper off. The VOC stopped all legal immigration in 1707. Though a number of Germans did keep arriving up until 1795 which might be the only example of any significant form of chain immigration as many of those Germans immigrated & settled straight to the eastern frontier.
Though of course it is possible for an individual to be more French than others or more German etc but the White Afrikaans peoples are a rather homogenous mixture of the early arrivals in the region.
Once again you're knowledge is stunning, however in terms of defining a sociological Boer population, considering that, as you yourself said, many of them, particularly in the urban communities have been absorbed into the Afrikaner communities, so in terms of those of Boer descent, still living as Boers, where do we stand?
82.12.246.147 11:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment -but I simply do my homework (or at least try hard to) on this topic. Which is what anyone should do before they begin to edit an encyclopedia on any subject.
Well it would be wrong to imply that the Boers were simply assimilated into Afrikaner communities as this was not quite be the case. Some were to be sure but for the most part the Boers have retained their sociological & consistent entity even still speaking with their own dialect which came from the Eastern Border Afrikaans which developed among the Trekboers of the frontier. It is simply a matter of people of Boer descent reasserting their own unique identity as many have continued to do thought the 20th cent & more are doing of late -instead of going along with the mass of Afrikaners (as so many did in the 20th cent) most of whom are culturally estranged from them. Note: some Boers were even assimilated into the English speaking group as a result of being orphaned during the Anglo-Boer War. Therefore: these specific individuals have been "lost" from the Boer nation.
The main reason as to why so many stopped referring to themselves as Boers had little to do with their culture being assimilated into the Afrikaner & more to do with the fact that when they became destitute after the Anglo-Boer War & moved to the cities they fell under under the political control of the Afrikaners who were running the whole new macro State. Which is why it was always a weak union as it appears many Boers consented to some degree with the political union with their estranged Cape based cousins (as many started voting for Afrikaner parties & stopped pursuing Boer independence & stopped promoting Boer cultural groups in the name of uniting against the British) & why so many now find it rather easy to break to the political union with them & disentangle themselves from the Afrikaners. The Boers had their first freedom struggle against the Cape Dutch (who ran & started the Afrikaners as a political force) -specifically against the VOC authorities in 1795 when the Boers on the frontier declared republics at the towns of Swellendam (June 18 1795 - Aug 12 1795) & Graaff-Reinet (Feb 6 1795 - Nov 12 1796). The British arrived in the Cape for the first time on September 16 1795 & reversed the independence of these republics by 1796 where the VOC had failed prior to reverse the independence due to its weak influence & power.
So the emigration of Boers, up until the 1930s, due to their poverty following the Anglo- Boer war essentially lead to some of them assimilating into Afrikaner culture. However despite this merging there's still a defined racial difference, recognised by both groups, between Afrikaner and Boer, if so, perhaps the article (and indeed the one on Afrikaners) should highlight these differences because many non- South Africans have fallen into the trap of believing that the Boer and the Afrikaner are one and the same.
82.14.64.128 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Well this is a complicated issue as well. First: the Afrikaner article has a section which does indeed note the historical difference between these two groups. Next: it is not totally inaccurate to refer to Boers as Afrikaners when in the context of meaning that they are African or part of Africa, but it is not correct to refer to them as Afrikaners as if they are part of the same sociological group from the Western Cape (whom they were estranged from) who promoted the widespread use of the term Afrikaner following the Anglo-Boer War which was promoted as a means of superficially unifying the White Afrikaans population as a device used to subjugate the Boers of republican descent in the new British created macro state in which the Boers were outnumbered & over powered by the Cape based Afrikaners. The main reason the British allowed a superficial White Afrikaans political merger to happen was that it nullified any possible threat to the territorial integrity of the new British controlled South African state as the Boers had posed in 1914 during the Martiz Rebellion.
The British knew that as the Afrikaners were based in the Cape (& were initially pro British) that they were not likely to threaten the territorial integrity of the macro state as the Boers would.
The following provides insight into how the Boers became susceptible to the ascending influence of the Cape based Afrikaners during the 1930s when many Boers were still very poor & were not able to effectively maintain the independence of or assert their own long running identity in the face of such a formidable challenge. The Boers were not assimilated as much as they were simply co-opted since the Cape Afrikaners often promoted Boer history in order to co-opt the Boers & to rationalize their control over the entire macro state as the Cape Afrikanrs had no real history of their own -therefore had to "borrow" the Boers'- but had the numbers within the greater White population.
The 1930s – the Myth Machine and the “Good Afrikaner". The “Boer worker" was the focus of the culture-brokers’ attentions in the next decade as the urban labour market became an arena in which Afrikaner intellectuals sought to capture the cultural allegiance of the urbanising Afrikaans-speaker. The 1930s were a period of economic insecurity, the worldwide Depression exacerbated locally by the drought and increasing urbanisation.53 The perceived need for Poor White “upliftment" – both educational and economic – was infused with ideas of ethnic identity and history. This economic quest required unity. Dr N Diederichs, a Nationalist politician and chairman of the Broederbond, agonising about the abyss between Afrikaner haves and have-nots, argued that it was “essential to create unity so that the poor can identify with us and feel one with us". Shared heroes were necessary to promote social unity, a fact demonstrated by the proliferation of historical works produced by nationalists in this period. It may also be argued that in any situation of social stress (the drought and depression had rendered this a time of social anxiety), there is a socio-psychological craving for heroes, which facilitated the intellectuals’ agenda.56 In order to mobilise Afrikaners, nationalism needed to have mass appeal. As Tom Nairn has noted, wherever nationalism was manufactured, the new middle-class intelligentsia had to “invite all the masses into history; and the invitation card had to be written in a language they understood". In the 1930s, in the run-up to the Great Trek celebrations, Afrikaner culture-brokers (a class consisting of teachers, clergy, academics, lawyers, newspaper editors and lower-level civil servants) had perfected this part of the enterprise.
The following is from a Dutch anti-Apartheid journalist named Adriana Stuijt who lived for many years in South Africa & was married to an Afrikaans person.
But we don't know how these so-called Afrikaners have also actively participated in the steady removal of the Boer nation's identity before these current events. And that's what makes a lot of people confused about their own identity.
It's a little-known part of history which started shortly after the end of the Anglo-Boer war in 1902, when the Boers were a defeated, poverty-stricken people who had been chased off their farms and whose towns had been destroyed by the British. They were dirt-poor and plunged into an unprecedented famine. Many had to flee to the cities to survive - places which were totally alien to them, places were only English was being spoken, places where their churches were being run by people who referred to themselves as Afrikaners.
Up to that point, the Boers had had a rich history and people still find old history books referring to this nation.
Recently a kind lady from Louisiana mailed me a copy of the "History of the Boers in South Africa," written in 1887 by a Canadian missionary with no political axe to grind: namely George McCall Theal.
It contains a map showing the territories which were being farmed by the Boers: from the Olifants/Limpopo rivers in the north to below the Orange River in the South (Colesburg).
It shows the names of the towns they had started wihich carried names such as Lydenburg, ( Place of Suffering) Vryheid, ( Place of Freedom) Pietermaritzburg, (named after the famous Voortrekker leader) Pilippolis and Bethulie, (named after their beloved Bible) and Potchefstroom, Rustenburg, Winburg and Bloemfontein... as they Trekked, the Boers named the map of South Africa, and many of its vegetation and wildlife as well.
All these Boer names are now being wiped off the map of South Africa in one fell swoop by the ANC-regime -- even though the Boers' official history had ended in 1902, long before the elitist-Afrikaners who ran the secret Afrikaner Broederbond cabal had started apartheid in 1948.
Yet this is not the first time that the Boers are facing such an ethnic cleansing campaign by a nation which is hell-bent to remove their very rights to exist in South Africa - this is actually already the third time in Boer history.
The first time the British tried to eradicate them from the map of South Africa with their vicious war and their even more vicious concentration camps where many tens of thousands of Boer women, children and elderly starved to death within just a few months.
After this first genocide to target the Boer nation, their descendants still managed to cling to their identity for at least another generation - until the secret cabal of wealthy Afrikaners called the Afrikaner Broederbond gaine hegemony -- and then took away their identity from about 1933 onwards.
When the Afrikaner Broederbond 's National Party won the elections, and took over the governance of South Africa from 1948 and launched the system of apartheid, the first thing they did was to completely rewrite the Boers' history.
Suddenly, all the accomplishments of the Boers became 'Afrikaner' accomplishments.
The Boer Women's Monument in Bloemfontein, erected in memory of the murdered Boer women and children who died in the British concentration camps written about so eloquently by British pro-Boer campaigner Emily Hobhouse, even became the Afrikaner Women's Monument - a truly vile insult to their memory. The Voortrekker Monument is described in terms which honour the memory of Afrikaners -- not the Boers who had actually undertaken the Great Trek.
Paul Kruger, their last president who was so sadly exiled to the shores of a lake in Switzerland, became an "Afrikaner" president in the history book -- when he himself never referred to himself in any of his correspondence as anything except a Boer.
Thus all the history books were rewritten and Boers with too-long memories such as Robert van Tonder of the Boerestaat Party and Eugene Terre'Blanche (of the incorrectly-named) Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging were persecuted publicly by the regime, aided and abetted by the Afrikaans-language news media. Eugene's heart is in the right place: he bears the flag of the old Boer Republic and he refers to himself as a Boer. But his organisation's name bears witness to his ethnic confusion, caused by the Afrikaner Broederbond's rewriting of his own history.
And now the ANC is completing this vile task which was started by the Afrikaner Broederbond, and has even changed the names of their towns - and even of the historically--important "Voortrekker" streets which indicate the routes which the old Voortrekker Leaders such as Bezuidenhout had taken while battling their way to the north to get away from British hegemony in the Cape.
The following is from a one H Labuschagne on the confusion.
Perhaps most of the confusion comes from the fact that the term "Boer" is rather confusing in itself. In fact, the Boers – and their present-day descendants, now known as "Afrikaners" — have always had difficulty in explaining in a few short sentences exactly who and what they were. The word "Boer," simply means "farmer" in Dutch. And that, essentially, is who and what the Boers used to be in the beginning. A race that was comprised almost exclusively of farmers.
While there has been some assimilation between the two groups: there is still enough of a distinction between the two to note sociologically different cultural groups.
- There is absolutely no way to "racially" (or genetically) differentiate one Afrikaans-speaking white South African from another, i.e. there is no "racial" group that can be called "boer". Even if there has been a clear distinction to start with, any such differences no longer exist. In a modern context the term is only used in a political context (to denote conservative or far right political views). Even amongst conservative political parties such as the Afrikaner Volksfront or even right wing extremists such as the former Afrikaner Weerstands Beweging (Afrikaner Resistance Movement), the term "Afrikaner" is clearly used while the term "boer" is only loosely used. So the question of number in the population can not be answered, because there is no physical distinction. --Deon Steyn 06:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Afrikaners & Boers are not racially or ethnically different from one another but to assert that there is no longer a cultural distinction between the two is clearly wrong. Just because a number of Boers were conditioned to stop viewing themselves as Boers from the 1930s onwards: does not mean that the Boers just suddenly stopped existing as a distinct group. The fact that the Cape Afrikaners still have derogatory terms like "Vaallies" & "rock-spiders" for the Boer descended Afrikaans group north of the Vaal River & still accuse the Boers of "having no culture" speaks volumes that the difference still exists. Those of Boer descent even speak with their own dialect.
To assert that the only people who call themselves Boers are conservative or "right-wing" (which has no valid meaning in a modern context since others who strive to assert their own unique identities are often labeled "left-wing" thereby demonstrating the meaningless of arbitrary outside imposed political labels to sociological phenomena) is patently false as their are many people who refer to themselves as Boers who are not conservative or right-wing. The term Boer is a sociological term & not a political term. The Boers were considered on the "left" during the early part of the 20th century before the right-wing Afrikaner Nationalists came on the scene & attempted to expropriate Boers' culture & history for the political augmentation of Afrikaner power in the region.
While their is no physical distinction there is clearly a cultural & sociological distinction as most Afrikaners are not the descendents of those who broke away form the Cape Dutch beginning in the 17th cent. Those of Boer descent are noted as being not more then one third of the total White Afrikaans population.
Please view the following video concerning the popularity of the De La Rey song in which it is clearly stated by those interviewed that there are those who view themselves as Boers & it is not a right wing political group.
Please see the portion of the video at 1:23 where the speaker clearly states that those who call themselves Boere are not necessarily people with right-wing sentiments. Although it is not necessarily simply a matter of "feeling" you are one. The Boers are a distinct sociological group who are descended from the Voortrekkers & the earlier frontier pastoralists. The individual at the end of the interview stated that that he would sing with the artist of the song Bok van Blerk aka Louis Pepler if "he were to have the new flag behind him" but the fact of the matter is that van Blerk / Pepler does in fact wear a t-shirt with the new flag on it when he performs the De La Rey song. The fact that there is an Orange Free State Vierkleur flag in the video is historically correct as it was one of the flags of the Boer republics used on the battlefield during the Anglo-Boer War.
The flowing is a comment from a Boer in the comment section of the video I linked to above.
I feel the way about the song they way Bok desribes in this video. I'm a Boer, proud of it,BUT NOT A RACIST. I'm living in Taiwan for seven years now, married to a chinese woman and recently became a dad of a beautiful baby girl. She will be brought up as Chinese, knowing where she comes from. This is what the song is about. Remembering where our roots are and being proud of it.
The Boers still exist as a distinct sociological group.
I'm sorry to be picky here, but the AWB are not 'extremist', nor very right- wing, they are extremely moderate conservatives. If you look closely at other organisations they aren't right- wing, perhaps in the context of South Africa they are, but globally there's a lot of more hard- line groups. The image of the AWB as right- wing was only perpetuated into the 21st century because of how left- wing the National Party and the ANC are.
The AWB were, in some ways, a very lax organisation, I mean they disrupted a few political meetings, and attempted to quell Bophuthatswana. However by the time the Reform Process was in full- swing they were doing very little to combat it, Terre'Blanche was a great orator and his views were very compatible with the state of White South African society at the time, however, he hardly took full advantage of the insecurities of Whites to form a truly right- wing group.
I think Piet Rudolph was more pro- Boer than Terre'Blanche, it's really a pity he never became full leader of the AWB, who knows, maybe Boers wouldn't be being murdered at a genocidal rate.
In my humble opinion I'd regard the AWB as very moderate, if I had've been a Boer at the time (or even alive at the time, I'm only 13), I would've been looking for true right- wingers if I was so inclined to prevent the tide of communists from engulfing South Africa.
As a person who seems to know a very large amount about Boer history and society, I'm suprised that you don't see how moderate the AWB were. I'd love to hear your opinion.
Please don't take offense anybody I'm not condoning violence I'm simply illustrating that in terms of global politics the AWB aren't extremist.
82.3.225.184 13:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you might have some valids points here: particularly your contention the Piet Rudolph was more pro Boer. The AWB was likely a government set up aimed at discrediting & nullifying the rise of a true Boer nationalist movement which could have been a real threat to the territorial integrity of the state. Were there to have been the rise an an anti-extremist Boer nationalist movement back then -then peraphs the Boers would not now be the most at risk group for being killed in the world & there might not be the current genocide taking place against them on their farms in the veld.
- According to the definitions of right-wing and extremist, the AWB were clearly "right-wing extremist". Both such definitions are relative and in the South African context, they were clearly to the extreme right of the political spectrum, it's not opinion it is commonly accepted fact (BBC news report). As for the conspiracy theory of them being a government front, that is simply unfounded "original research" that violates Wikipedia policy (for articles and talk pages, see Wikipedia:No original research. Last, but not least, there no longer exist a genetic, ethnic or "sociological" group called "boer". Any such claims are attempts at propaganda and not based in scientific fact. Those that refer to themselves as "boer" wish to associate with a specific political/cultural identity. It is not as weak, but similar to people who dress in black and call themselves "goths" in that it is a choice. What irritates many South Africans —especially white Afrikaans speaking ones— is that political parties or commentators hi-jack this historical term and associate right-wing —often racist— politics with it in an attempt at myth making , which is a common thread amongst white supremacist groups, who often referring to a mythical nation (see also Nazism and race). --Deon Steyn 07:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Terms like right wing & left wing have no practical value when analyzing events on the whole as these terms are arbitrary labels which do nothing to reveal what particular socio / political structures might entail as political & social theory tends to exist only on paper. Not in practice or in the real world. For instance: the AWB were not too fond of pure Capitalism (they even advocated clear economic socialist ideals): therefore the term right-wing is just not a completely accurate term to describe them. All analysis of political structures & groups IS opinion no matter how much it is couched in clichés / memes or established journalism. Just because a given number of established media groups claim that something is a "fact" does not necessarily make it so. See Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Which the establishment media also widely reported as a given fact.
The speculation that the AWB was a government front is not a "conspiracy theory" (as it was never put forward as such) but simply a common & well known speculation (as noted by a Pieter Du Toit in the WND article) based upon observable fact.
There is indeed still a sociological group known as Boers. Just because a number were conditioned to stop referring to themselves as such: does not mean that the entire group just disappeared. In fact it does not even matter what the specific group calls itself: they could call themselves Arabs (if they so choose to) for that matter. The point I am making is that the Boer cultural / sociological group once widely known as Boers (& often still known as such throughout the 20th cent despite many being co-opted by the Cape Afrikaners) still exists as a distinct entity as it has in the past.
Well if you want to insist that the Boers are a "mythical" nation: be my guest (though you would be wrong), but what then would that make the Afrikaners in general? There was a racist right-wing Black Nationalist on here about a year ago who said just about this exact thing in the Orania talk section. As a matter of fact a better case can be made that the Afrikaners are a "mythical" nation as it was the politically motivated forcing of two distinct sociological groups into a new manufactured one through the coercive power of the new macro state. Furthermore: it was manufactured by the right wing which was even flirting with Nazism at about this time. When it comes to extremism: the Boer nationalists have got nothing compared to the Afrikaner nationalists of the past.
The concept of the AWB being extremist seems foreign to me, they compromised (not a sign of extremism at all), from wanting to continue the Apartheid system to wanting a White homeland. They were demonised when they tried to defend their people, correct me if I'm wrong but Boers had very little say in the Reform Process, therefore they were left angered. They did judge themselves in terms of who their enemies were/are, the ANC, and the rest of the left- wing. I've done a fair amount of study into them, from what I heard, they were a common organisation to belong to in say 1990, for rural people, however by 1994 it was only extremists left. So I suppose we could agree to say that the nature of their members changed in the years from DeKlerk taking over to Mandela becoming President.
The dismantling of Apartheid was remarkably peaceful considering how there was nothing good in it for Whites, the White race in South Africa were sold out, because the poorest always get hit hardest it's not been the English- speakers and Afrikaners who got the bulk of anti- White activities, it was, as you pointed out on several occasions above, the Boers.
What's extremely interesting is how only a few thousand Whites associated themselves with militant, pro- Apartheid, right- winger organisations, considering they were informed there lives were about to be turned upside down. I think they were heavily institutionalised by the oppressive Apartheid regime, obligatory military service and a heavy police presence, as well as 46 years of the same party ruling, turned Whites into robots.
According to experts at the time the Conservative Party, who I believe was under the leadership of Dr. Ferdi Hartzenberg, had 250,000 members, they claimed AWB membership to be as low as 5,000- 10,000, even at their height (which was around the 1989- 1991 mark), however Terre'Blanche claimed 70,000 members, additionally mentioning they could muster 55,000 trained commandos, Viljeon could call on the SADF, considering he was both an ex- Army chief and ex- SADF boss, there was others, like the Boeremag. So it would be hard to call such a massive proportion of the population extremist. Although the CP never really took a paramilitary stance.
It should be detailed in the article why there was no Boer revolution, I suppose it all came down to the Bophuthatswana Coup, Viljeon split from the Volksfront Alliance, because of the AWB's behaviour there and involved himself in the election. If it had have been Rudolph, or even Terre'Blanche, who was ex- SADF and ex- army head, and they had secured the loyalty of the Defense Force, a revolution could have easily happened.
86.27.135.212 11:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that Talk pages are not forums (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), but for discussions on the article content itself. You lack a proper understanding of the situation. I have already cited reliable sources referring to the AWB as right-wing extremists, you will find none referring to them as left-wing, centre or moderate and even the most optimistic (even though completely biased and unverifiable claims) figures of 70,000 members is a tiny fraction of the total SA population (that exceeded 40 million at the time) or even the white population (approx. 4.5 million at the time) which would make their views an extreme. Please limit your comments to neutral verifiable facts. --Deon Steyn 12:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Either way we can all agree groups like the AWB have had a very important influence on recent Boer history.
82.26.25.238 14:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would disagree that the AWB had all that much of an influence due to their small membership numbers.
Optimistic estimates? There was 70,000 AWB members, in one meeting alone they attracted 12,000 members, besides members and supporters are virtually inseperable, in all major events (such as disrupting political meetings and the Battle of Ventersdorp) non- signed on 'members' joined in, so to all intents and purposes they had 70,000 loyal people at their disposal, what percentage were listed as signed- up members is virtually immaterial.
82.9.29.195 13:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- An earlier post mentions that "Terre'Blanche claimed 70,000 members", therefore I referred to it as an estimate and "most optimistic" as it is the greatest number. No matter the source (I have yet to see one cited), 70 000 is still a tiny fraction and since they hold a view different to the vast majority of the population would still qualify them as "extremist" according to the definition of the term. --Deon Steyn 07:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Small influence?
Ron7, I seriously dispute that, they were penetrated by the Security Police (which is well- known before Deon interjects and tries to pick fault with me), they defeated the SAP on several occasions (most memorably the storming of the Johannesburg WTC). Their 120 bomb campaign is yet another piece of evidence displaying them as an organised, nationalist, paramilitary force, they had connections in the police and Defense Force (where they obtained many of their explosives from), a large number of the AWB had military training. I see it as highly unlikely that if it did come to a fully- blown war the other 4.43 million Whites would have sided with the Blacks against the AWB, a large number of them would have joined the paramilitary, nationalist movement, the AWB gained huge support when it showed it was being pro- active and was prepared to engage the SAP (following the Battle of Ventersdorp there was a great increase in support for the AWB).
So there you go, they had plenty of influence and the government of the time regarded them as a threat, who knows they may turn around soon and mount a revolution.
JBAK88 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- First off, I'm assuming you are the previous anonymous poster that have now created an account? Could you please check Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. New headings go at the bottom of the page and denote a new topic, previous threads should be answered with and indented paragraph. Also note, that talk pages are not forums, they are strictly for discussion of the article (problems, modifications etc.). You keep talking of the AWB with admiration when they never had much support and were almost universaly ridiculed in South Africa (even amongst the majority of White Afrikaans speakers). The government did regard them as a threat just as any terrorist organization would be, even if it has only 5 members. Please remember that the goverment held a referendum asking the white population whether they should continue a negotiated settlement with the ANC or not. The majaority gave their approval which led to the current democracy (1992 South African Referendum). Most white South Africans (Afrikaners included) watched the futile WTC spectacle with horror and great embarrassment. Please keep all comments to verifiable facts, backed up with actual reliable sources (I have referred you to the correct guidelines on several occasions). --Deon Steyn 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Terrorist? Besides incidents such as the Bophuthatswana Coup (in which only 700 armed paramilitaries were involved) and the Battle of Ventersdorp (in which 2,000 AWB supporters were involved) and storming of Kempton Park (5,000 supporters), it was only a minority of the AWB as an organisation who were actively involved in violence, there was 55,000 commandos ready for war, only 2,000 were ever engaged in gubattle.
Of an organisation with at least 70,000 supporters/ members it was only 1/35 who were paramilitay, as for being ridiculed I doubt whether the blacks in Tshing township, or the residents of the former Bophuthatswana, or the policemen who got shot by their troops, took them as a joke.
They only resorted to violence because no- one took notice of their message, the requested a Boer homeland, which under international law they have a right to. Why should they, as a people, be made to associate with those they despise? If you put people who, through the regime under which they have formed their beliefs and inhibitions, dislike blacks, in a black dominated society you're going to get friction. Maybe the black- White violence in South Africa will end when the last of those who grew up in the Apartheid era have died, that's if the entire Boer people haven't been wiped out.
I understand that they were a minority, of the Afrikaans Whites I've met only one had a dad who was in the AWB, however they only had the best interests of their people at heart, and I respect that.
By the way, Deon, out of interest how do you self- identify?
JBAK88 17:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've spoken with White South Africans, both over the internet, and personally about the AWB, and obviously (as you'd imagine) I don't keep company with communists or left- wingers, so this may be an unbalanced view, however everyone, apart from a few, seems to think that they were trying to help out, they might not actively support them (as I said above), but I don't think you can say they risked their lives (and in 6 cases lost them) for the fun of it.
JBAK88 17:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Non- participating Boers
As you said above many Boers were forced to leave their traditional rural homes and find work in the cities, where some were taken advantage of by Afrikaner nationalists, so I would imagine that there is a lack of Boer communities and self- identifying Boers in the areas where Boers who participated in the war were from?
I know that in the now Kwazu- Natal there is a fair amount of Boer communities, so I would imagine that since the British would have destroyed the livestock and farmland of those who they were fighting against, it was only a certain portion of the Boer people who were urbanised?
86.27.56.184 22:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please create an account (Wikipedia:Why create an account?) so that it is clear which editors contributes what. Also please familiarise yourself with wikipedia guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Talk pages are for discussion of specific points in articles, not as a general forum, please limit yourself to verifiable facts (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and refrain from original research (Wikipedia:No original research). Your post is unclear on the time, place or war it refers to. Also the current (as of 1994) province name is KwaZulu-Natal. --Deon Steyn 07:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Deon for once. Please create an account if you wish to edit articles here.
Okay, thanks for educating me Deon, I'm suprised you have such a hostile attitude to me to be honest, I'm guessing (for saying you have a German surname and are South African) that you're a Boer or Afrikaner, I've shown nothing but support and admiration for your culture and their supporters, yet you seem hasty and rude to be honest.
86.27.53.225 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry if I seem rude, it was not my intention, but Wikipedia demands neutrality (see WP:NPOV) and I have to correct anyone who misinterprets, distorts or misunderstands the facts or reports them from a non-neutral point of view (that they are perhaps not aware of). Yes, I am a South African and yes my first language is Afrikaans so I am more familiar with the topic then someone from a different background would be. I am also familiar with some of the historical distortions of the Afrikaner/Boer past and how what the share with white supremacist groups in general. I feel it is my duty as Wikipedian – and also South African – to correct such inaccuracies and point out a more balanced view. --Deon Steyn 15:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I see, I guess we got our wires crossed, as I said when I came back from my 30 day ban, I'll believe what I like about who I like, however I won't allow it to impede upon my editting or take page discussion, because the truth is I love editting wikipedia, and letting my emotions run away just ruins that and causes havoc.
Also, wow, your English is probably better than mine, which is some acheivement saying Afrikaans is your first language.
JBAK88 17:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Addressing an earlier issue, of 'primary' Dutch ancestry
Although Dutch ancestry may not be what the Boer people are primarily descended from, culturally they have taken more from Dutch culture than any other one, as well as linguistically. So in terms of language and culture they are overwhelmingly Dutch.
82.27.255.99 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, please refrain from "original research" and cite reliable sources. As the article points out in several places, the term "Boer" and the exact characteristics of the group it refers, varies with time. If you feel the article need modification or correction, please cite reliable source and update it. --Deon Steyn 07:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well User: 82.27.255.99. I would disagree that their culture is "overwhelmingly" Dutch as they have developed into a unique & distinct culture which can not be reducible to their partial Dutch origins. It would be rather like saying that since Americans speak English (or a dialect of it) & have been largely influenced by English culture (at least more so in the past) that they are "overwhelmingly" English. Which or course is not correct.
I can partially concede your point, however, I would say that in terms of language (which has a great influence on culture) they are Dutch, although elements of Malay and other languages have added to Afrikaans and it has diverged from Dutch, so it's probably taken more from Dutch culture than anyone else.
86.27.53.225 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ate best it was originally predominantly (not exclusively) Dutch, but it is no longer possible for any white South Africans (English or Afrikaans speaking) to say exactly what their genetic ancestry is and it most certainly is a mixture of – mostly – British, French, German and Dutch. Culturally however, there no longer exists any link whatsoever to the Netherlands or Dutch culture. The languages aren't immediately compatible and most Afrikaans speaking emmigrants are most comfortable in English speaking countries such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the USA/Canada with hardly any emmigrants to the Netherlands with it's foreign language, cold weather and European culture. --Deon Steyn 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
An interesting point indeed Deon, it says something strange, perhaps the global influence of English- speaking countries has made them seem more desirable than the smaller Dutch- speaking nations like Belgium and Holland. However I think that in a way they aren't 'truly' African, hear me out, because it's funny how they don't look first for oppurtunity in their own continent, rather in other places, external immigration is usually only resorted to after trying life in a different part of your home continent.
81.107.213.136 19:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Deon, I think 70,000 says it all
I personally don't associate Boers or Afrikaners with White supremacy, I would associate the few hundred thousand or so right- wing Afrikaners and Boers with it, as I said I don't think Apartheid was challenged by them a great deal, not because they individually agreed with it, but I think it was shown as the only way a country in which they were such a huge minority could be run without black rule.
The policy of seperate developement would have been a peace- keeping strategy had it not been taken advantage of by so many, I think that in order to preserve individual cultures and peoples an element of seperate developement is required, it was used as a vehicle to oppress, when it should have been a regime to develope seperately and celebrate your own culture and people in your own state. The blacks had their own self- governing regions, where they were a majority and could live as native Africans, the Whites had their own places where they could live as White Africans, it's just enshrining in law what is done naturally anyway, ethnicity- based communities are formed in any part of the world, it's just that in South Africa, at that time, it was made official.
86.27.78.208 15:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
HELLO
hey ppls. ive never done this b4 so this is new 2 me. hahahahahahaha. i dont kno what 2 write. i'm done now i guess. luv ya everyone whos reading this!