Talk:Voortrekkers

Cape Colony

The British Cape Colony? Isn't it supposed to be the Dutch colony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.253.194 (talk • contribs) Sept 6 2007.

No -- since during the time of the Great Trek it was under British rule.

Ron7 (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Dates Left Unchanged.

I have just noticed that this article lists - now listed - the wrong dates for the Great Trek & that this has persisted for almost a year & a half now. Since September 11, 2006, it has stated "1840s and 1850s" when in fact the Great Trek started in 1835 (1836 en masse) & into the 1840s. Since by the time of the 1850s, the Great Trek was over & various minor Boer Republics had long since been established, with the major republics of the Transvaal Republic & the Orange Free State becoming independent after the Sand River Convention of 1852 & the Orange River Convention of 1854. I am most disappointed that this error could have prevailed for so long.

Ron7 (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the mistake. However, there is no reason to lament about these matters in the way you do. You could have made the correction yourself a year and a half ago. That is what Wikipedia is about: all participants are editors! The article as such still needs a lot of editing to make it a Good Article. Feel invited to contribute, both in content and copy-editing. I will do my own bit, but have some other Wikipedia priorities at the moment. Michel Doortmont (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Doormont, I think that you have a bad attitude!24.121.195.165 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with the American West.

A point which many historians of the Great Treck have often made is the fact that while the Settling of the American West by farmers, miners, etc. Capturing the imagination of Europe, European historians have often taken a less sympathetic view of the Voortrekkers. Another point was how Pete Reteif came to fall victim to the ambush that killed him. As one man said, "Pete Reteif was too much of a gentleman for this world. He really that thought the natives would keep their word."Johnwrd (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to spell "Voortrekkers" correctly in the article about the Voortrekkers!24.121.195.165 (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Land Treaty?

The Battle of Blood River-Wiki explains that the Voortrekkers only asked for the right to build a church and that they didn't mention how much land they envisioned to be part of that church, nor that they would impose their own public laws on all that land, automatically subjugating Zulu-law. The Dutch version of the same page explains that in the Zulu-laws of those days land could not be owned, and that Zulu's only gave use rights to an unspecified amount of land around the church. Apparently they were not informed, let alone asked consent for this de facto founding of a new state on their territory. These details were according to Dutch Wiki-version lost in translation. This translation was delivered by a Boers vickar, which makes the voortrekkers responsible for this loss in translation. I think it's highly relevant, for both Boers and Zulu mythology. How shall we formulate it, and blend it in?Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Great Trek & Voortrekkers

These are two similar concepts. Should they not be merged? If not, they should be clearly delineated, and one should be a subarticle of the other. JMK (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. They are not just "similar concepts", but they are one and the same.24.121.195.165 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@JMK and 24.121.195.165: Came here to ask about that too. Merger proposed. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67HIjPo9K?url=http://www.luminatechnologies.org/lumaw.html to http://www.luminatechnologies.org/lumaw.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The external links "History of the Voortrekker monument" and "Voortrekker Monument in Depth." are dead.77.125.85.13 (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Reasons for the Great Trek

Just putting this out there, as unfortunately I don't have time to look at this right now - but I will come back when I do.

This section could do with revising. The main problem is that it presents these reasons uncritically, as if "being blamed (wrongly) by the (British) government for provoking an unjust war" and "the colony is no place for a Christian to live", etc., are facts.

They ARE facts as far as the people's opinions and their reactions to them are concerned! You have done a foolish thing in arguing against the way that the people had their feelings and opinions. From the point-of-view-of the social sciences, the you have been pseudoscientific.24.121.195.165 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

These aren't facts, but they might be reasons given by someone at some point to explain something (though sparse on references here) and therefore this section needs to be rephrased in order to make that clear.

I am afraid that by not doing so we are implicitly consenting to these ideas standing as reasons when clearly they need to be appraised with the benefit of critical and historical perspective.

The problem I am having right now is that most of the sources I have found that might be able to help are written in Afrikaans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.222.217.30 (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The Meaning of "Voortrekkers"

The Meaning of "Voortrekkers":
Besides your other interpretations (mostly faulty ones), "Voortrekker" means "Forward trekker".
To the Afrikaners, they were doing all of these things: A. Trekking forward into the unpopulated wilderness for new land and new opportunities.
B. Trekking forward out of the Cape Colony, where they felt oppressed by the British.
C. Trekking forward out of the Cape Colony, which they viewed as being a sinful and un-Christian place to live.
D. Trekking forward in the direction of their God and the way that He wanted them to live.
Whether you agree or disagree, these were the opinions and the actions of the Afrikaans Voortrekkers.
It was just like the opinion of the Japanese in 1940. They believed that their destiny was to rule East and Southeast Asia. Almost all of us disagree vehemently with that, but it was the opinion of the Japanese Empire.24.121.195.165 (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)