08 April 2011

Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box – Part 30 – The NP pulls off the biggest Confidence Trick in the history of South Africa



By Mike Smith

8th of April 2011

When F.W. de Klerk mounted the rostrum to open parliament for the 41st time on Friday the 2nd of February 1990, nobody except his cabinet and National Intelligence knew what was about to be announced…and obviously General Tienie Groenewald of Military Intelligence Com.Ops. who wrote the speech for him.

De Klerk unbanned several terrorist organizations, announced the freeing of Nelson Mandela and expressed a desire to renegotiate the future of South Africa with all concerned.

The Conservative Party showed their disgust with the speech by walking out of parliament.

After his speech South Africa would never be the same again and would continue on a downward spiral for all its citizens.

The press later dubbed it “Red Friday” and “The Red Speech”, because of all the Marxist terrorists that were unleashed on South Africa.

Later on De Klerk would cite the demise of Stalinist Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe as his main reasons for allowing him the opportunity to unban these organizations. He felt that without the support base from these former Communist countries, the “liberation movements” posed less of a threat.

Truth is that the economical and ideological support that these Marxist terrorist organizations were receiving came mostly from the West. From Churches, from charities, from singers, actors and other celebrities, from Scandinavian donors, etc…

De Klerk knew this. He was a member of the State Security Council (SSC) and had full access to all intelligence reports.

Nevertheless, De Klerk announced in his speech, “The season of violence is over. The time for reconstruction and reconciliation has arrived.”

We all know that hindsight is twenty-twenty, but of all the forms of wisdom, hindsight is probably the least merciful, the most unforgiving.

Truth is that De Klerk’s speech on the 2nd of February 1990 did not end the season of violence, it started it. Between his speech in 1990 and 1994 South Africa experienced the most violent period in her history.

On the 11th of February 1990, arch Communist Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela walked hand-in-hand with his wife Winnie out of Victor Verster prison near Paarl. He was whisked away to Cape Town’s City Hall from where he would make his first public address in 27 years…a rather unforgiving and resentful speech in front of 80,000 people.

He called for the intensification of the struggle on all fronts, saying, “Now is the time to intensify the struggle on all fronts” and he called for. “redoubling” of efforts in the armed struggle. He further called for the continuation of sanctions against South Africa and the isolation of the Pretoria regime. He called for more rolling mass action saying, “It is only through disciplined mass action that our victory can be assured.”

Hardly reconciliatory and peaceful. Rather, it sounded like Mandela was on the war path.
Mandela’s complete speech

After his speech he spent his first night out of prison at the mansion of Champagne Socialist, Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu, in Bishops Court.

In the next two months mass action intensified in Tokoza (80,000), Daveyton, (60,000), Alexandra (50,000) etc. By the end of April 1990, 25 policemen were killed, their homes demolished with front-end loaders….the SAIRR monitored more than 400 assaults on councilors and policemen from January to July 1990.

The institute’s CEO John Kane-Berman later wrote in his book, “Political Violence in South Africa”, pg 58 that more than half of these incidents were never reported in any of the six English newspapers in Johannesburg. Almost no photographs either, “yet Right-wing violence and intimidation were regularly featured, prominently displayed, and reported on by teams of investigative journalists, accompanied by photographers”.

Unrest in the Black homelands of Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei escalated with murder and bomb blasts…the season of violence was only starting.

What were the whites feeling at the time?

At this stage whites were mostly unaffected by the violence. It was still mostly in the black townships and the homelands. Whites still had hope. They thought the violence would soon dissipate. After all Nelson Mandela was free, Apartheid laws were for the most part scrapped and South Africa was on the road to black rule…Why the violence?

Further, De Klerk and Mandela promised that the season of violence was over and the whites naively swallowed it all.

In Natal, virtual civil war erupted between the ANC (who bought youths over to their side with R50 notes) and the IFP. Still the whites hoped it would all be over soon.

Where were De Klerk and Mandela at this stage?

They were dogging each other’s footsteps in Europe and the USA, De Klerk asking for sanctions to be lifted and Mandela asking for sanctions to remain until he was in power.

South West Africa becomes Namibia

During the same time President De Klerk and Foreign Minister Pik Botha were involved in giving more South African territory away, namely South West Africa and the South African harbor Walvis Bay.

A brief history of the South West issue is here necessary. The vast land between the Kunene River in the North and the Orange River in the South is for the most part a desert. It was of no use to the British during the nineteenth century and all they were interested in were the Penguin islands and the deep water port of Walvis Bay which they annexed in 1878. The rest of the land became a German colony since 1884. The Caprivi Strip became part of SWA in 1890.

During the Second Anglo-Boer War, the Germans supported the Boers, but when the Boers surrendered in 1902 they had to pledge legion to the Crown of England…which they reluctantly did. Thousands of Boers refused to do so and rather emigrated to Argentina.

In 1910 South Africa became a Union made up of the Two Boer Republics of The Orange Free State and The Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek as well as the two British Colonies of The Cape and Natal.

At this stage Walvis Bay became part of South Africa.

In 1914 the First World War broke out in Europe and it presented a nice opportunity for the British to test the loyalty of the Boers. Prime Minister Louis Botha was asked to annex SWA on behalf of the British Crown, basically going to war with their former friends the Germans. It further has to be remembered that a great deal of Boers to this day are themselves from German decent. At the time of 1914 many could still speak German.

This sparked a rebellion by General Manie Maritz and some others who saw an opportunity to restore the old Boer Republics. They managed to get a total of about 3000 men together. Generals Jan Smuts and Louis Botha along with 32,000 troops of which about 20,000 were former Boers themselves quelled the rebellion and by 1915 South West Africa came under South African control. Please note how the majority of the Boers were now fighting on the side of the British…not on the side of Maritz and De La Rey.

At the end of the First World War, Germany was bankrupt and could not run the colony again. Britain did not want it, because it was a useless desert, so the League of Nations put it under a mandated rule by South Africa.

According to this mandate South Africa had to introduce its laws and protect the citizens, by amongst other things keeping out hostile foreign forces.

The League of Nations seized to exist when the United Nations was created, but the UN was not the automatic successor of the League of Nations.

When the UN wanted SWA under their control South Africa objected, because at that stage the South Africans have built up SWA complete with harbours, dams, roads, airports, and other infrastructure. SWA was for all intents and purposes a fifth province of South Africa, although it was never officially incorporated.

The International Court of Justice in 1966 further ruled in South Africa’s favour and said that South Africa was not obliged to hand over SWA to the UN and should continue its supervisory role.

Despite this ruling by the ICJ in 1966, the UN unilaterally ended South Africa’s mandate in SWA.

In 1971, acting on a request for advisory opinion from the United Nations Security Council, the ICJ ruled that the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia was illegal and that South Africa was under an obligation to withdraw from Namibia immediately. It also ruled that all member states of the United Nations were under an obligation to recognize the invalidity of any act performed by South Africa on behalf of Namibia.

Since 1966 until 1989 (for 23 years) two generations of mainly White but also Coloured, Indian and Black men would fight on the Namibian Angola border to keep out the Marxist terrorist insurgents and keep the citizens of Namibia, of all races, free from Communist oppression and genocide that was rife in the rest of Africa, basically everywhere where the Communists took over.

On the 21st of March 1990, the 30th anniversary of the Sharpeville incident, De Klerk handed over the keys of Namibia to South Africa’s former enemies, the Marxist terrorist SWAPO. For 14 years prior to that, Foreign Minister Pik Botha along with his friends, Chester Crocker, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State, were planning this treacherous event whilst sending South African men to die on the border.

For almost a century South African taxpayer money went into Namibia to build up infrastructure on par with South Africa. Hospitals, schools, universities, roads…everything was built with the money of South Africans.

Pik Botha and F.W. De Klerk gave it all away with no mandate from the South African voters. In 1994 even the official South African territory of Walvis Bay was given away with no referendum, no mandate and no compensation whatsoever.

This was an act of high treason. De Klerk had no right to give away property that did not belong to him and in fact belonged to South Africans.

Nevertheless, at the handing over of Namibia on the 21st of March, De Klerk again echoed his words from the 2nd of February. He called himself an “Advocate of peace” and the “Season of violence was over”. It proved to be a trifle too optimistic.

Irreversible change

As De Klerk and Mandela traveled the world for the rest of 1990, one would constantly hear De Klerk making reference to “Irreversible Change”.

For instance, on the 24th of September 1990 De Klerk addressed the Washington National Press Club, expressing his satisfaction over President Bush accepting the “Irreversibility” of change in South Africa.

During a ceremony at the Rose Garden that same morning he used the word “irreversible” five times and it bounced off his lips another few times in the question and answer session that followed.

The “irreversibility” of change was a precondition of the lifting of sanctions, but it also signaled at that stage that for the whites of South Africa, the time was over. The omelette was scrambled. There was no turning back.

In October 1990 despite major violence, the State of Emergency had been lifted totally and Foreign Minister Pik Botha informed the President of the UN General Assembly that more “than 100 discriminatory laws and regulations have been repealed and only three Apartheid Laws still remained”.

Two of these, The Group Areas Act and the Lands Act, Botha promised would be repealed at the opening of Parliament in early 1991. The Third one, The Population Registration Act could only be adopted if the new constitution was accepted.

This is where it gets interesting

The Population Registration Act was the cornerstone of not only Apartheid, but as well as the Tri-cameral Constitution of 1983. Scrapping it would not only bring down Apartheid, but the Government itself and would leave a void. It was a constitutional impossibility to scrap the Population Registration Act.

The entire Tri-cameral constitution was based on the fact that there were different houses of parliament (House of Assembly-Whites, House of Representatives-Coloureds, and House of Delegates- Indians).

If the NP government scrapped this Act, it would mean there would not be anymore Whites, Coloureds and Indians as per definition. Everyone would be equal in front of the law.

It would mean that the NP would have to dissolve the entire government, call an election and that the people of South Africa would have to create a new constitution.

There was no way around this and the NP knew it. If the NP wanted to remain in power it could not repeal the Population Registration Act. If they did repeal the act, they would be committing political suicide and lose all power.

F.W. de Klerk himself was a lawyer and he knew this only too well. There was only one way to pull this off. They had to play the biggest confidence-trick on the whites voters of South Africa.

How to con Whites out of power 101

The government was fully advised by MI and NIS on how to do this.

General Tienie Groenewald was the protégé of Eschel Rhoodie and the chief expert on propaganda as well as psychological warfare. He knew the South African public intimately. He would play a major role in what happened next.

By early 1991 Law and Order Minister Adriaan Vlok released figures on violence in South Africa. A total of 17,088 incidents of unrest in 1990 set a new record. (The Star, Johannesburg, 11th of February 1991).

The Civil War between the IFP and the ANC spread from Natal to the townships around Johannesburg and Pretoria.

The death toll in the first four months of 1990 stood at 1400; about the same as for the entire year before. By the end of 1990 there had been 3700 deaths in political violence. This was 163% increase over the 1400 deaths in 1989. Since the war between the IFP and the ANC started in the late 1980’s the death toll now topped the 7000 mark. There was surely no “end to the season of violence” as De Klerk promised.

On the 1st of February 1991 De Klerk again opened parliament with a speech. As everyone expected, he announced the repealing of the Group areas Acts and the Land Acts.

He sprung a surprise when he announced that also the Population Registration Act of 1950 would be repealed, despite earlier indications that such a step would be constitutionally impossible.

Les De Villiers write in his book “In sight of Surrender”, page 179…

“On the part of the Government”, De Klerk explained, “the view was held that the Population Registration Act would have to be repealed eventually, but that this could not be done immediately because the Act was technically necessary for the maintenance of the present constitutional dispensation. Therefore it would be possible to repeal the Act only once a new constitution had been implemented.”

Further investigation, he announced, showed that it was, in fact, possible to repeal this Act, provided that it was accompanied by the adoption of “temporary Transitional Measures” toward the acceptance of a new constitution”.

De Klerk was lying through his teeth. It could not be done. He did not fool the opposition Conservative Party. De Klerk's speech was interrupted by jeers and cries of "traitor" from white opposition Conservative Party members. Some were forcefully ejected, which prompted a walkout by the remainder of the 41 party members.

After this speech, more violence and rolling mass action by tens of thousands of blacks took place. The townships were in chaos. Necklace murders were the order of the day…

De Klerk waited until the Currie Cup Rugby season was in full swing. The White public, for whom Rugby is a second religion, would be totally fixated on the biggest sporting event on the calendar. At that stage the Rugby World Cup was only a few months away and South Africa would once again not be able to partake due to sports boycotts.

The human mind does not like chaos. It is repulsed by horrible acts of violence such as necklace murders. It wants order and calm. On the television, radio and newspapers the public was bombarded with scenes of horrible violence, chaos and mass action across the country as well as, at the same time, the beautiful game of Rugby. People wanted an end to this chaos they just wanted to watch Rugby, but instead it was getting worse by the day.

The Intelligence operatives knew exactly what they were doing. They relied on another factor; The political blindness, naivety and ignorance of the greater white electorate.

Probably 99% of them had never read the Constitution or the Population Registration Act let alone understand it. They simply trusted the NP to take care of them…they just wanted to watch the Rugby, have a beer and forget about the violence ripping across the country.

At a special ceremony on Thursday the 27th of June 1991at his office in the Union Buildings, in Pretoria, President F.W. De Klerk signed off on the last three remaining Apartheid Laws in full view of the world press and television cameras.

According to De Klerk, the scrapping of the Group Areas Act, the Land Act and the Population Registration Act meant that the book on Apartheid was closed.

What De Klerk forgot to add was that when he did that, he also closed the book on himself and his government.

From that day onwards, the NP had no constitutional right to govern anymore, they had no mandate anymore. There was no interim transitional measures in place, nothing.

On the 27th of June 1991, the National Party Government became an unconstitutional and illegal government.

That makes everything they have done afterwards also illegal, including the 1992 referendum and the negotiations on behalf of the whites of South Africa. The entire 1994 election was illegal and the ANC government today is therefore illegal.

One would ask today, “But why did the lawyers not do anything? Surely they knew what was going on.”

Yes. They knew full well what was going on. ONE man…one such a lawyer raised his voice.

His name was Jaap Marais, the leader of the HNP (Herstigde Nasionale Party or the Reconstituted National Party), a small rightwing faction that broke from the NP in 1969.

Jaap Marais said that the NP was an illegal government and had no right or mandate to govern. He was 100% right. Marais called for a boycott of all elections since then. Taking part in any election after 27 June 1991 would give legitimacy to such an election and therefore legitimacy to the ANC Marxist regime.

Problem was that the HNP catered exclusively for the Afrikaners and almost all their literature and speeches were in Afrikaans. The HNP even refused to translate their name into English, rejecting bilingualism. They were seen as a fringe, extremist, and somewhat Calvinistic religious fanatic, right-wing group, mostly because of disinformation by the liberal media and the NP government.

Even so, Marais prided himself on his command of the English language and would gently correct English-speaking interviewers on their grammar and syntax. He was a devotee of poetry, particular the works of John Keats and T S Eliot, and had translated Shakespeare's Julius Caeser into Afrikaans. He was also a connoisseur of fine wines - and an acclaimed breeder of budgerigars, winning many international awards for this hobby, some of them from Britain. Source Tellegraph

To his dying day he continued to recall the good old ways of apartheid and to predict the eventual inevitable collapse of a foolhardy experiment with multiracial democracy. He never forgave the British for the Anglo Boer War in which both his parents were interned.

Pity… Maybe if the HNP took a more reconciliatory and unifying stance and catered for all the whites in SA instead of just the Afrikaners and adopted bilingualism, they would probably have been taken more seriously at the time and would have mustered more support.

I am not sure if there were any other lawyers at the time that also realised that the whites of South Africa were being conned out of their country, but if there were, they were few and far between and certainly not mentioned in the media.

At the end of the day, the Intelligence operatives won. The NP remained in power and the Whites of South Africa carried on watching Rugby while the townships were burning…The whites had confidence in the NP and believed they knew what they were doing. They firmly believed that the NP was acting in the best interest of South Africa and its people.

93 comments:

  1. Wow -- history that must must be told. Thanks!!! Again and Again!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:16 am

    Not much has changed since then ,most whites all they want is there rugby and braai on the weekends and to hell with the rest.
    Tomorrow they wake up and read of another murder or rape statistic until one day they become the statistic and then they must thank there rugby god.
    When will people wake up to the truth?

    Captivating read Mike keep up the good work.

    Groete Boerelander

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous1:53 pm

    Yet again, a fantastic piece from the pen... hmmm, keyboard of Mike!

    As Boerelander above said... captivating.

    Krakende Kakebene

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous2:59 am

    This is history as it should be told. What a pity its not in a downloadable book form or pdf file. I will gladly pay for it. It would be worth its weight in gold, when armed with it and attending a pc or liberal get together.
    Its not fictitious make belief, holywood style, but actual events supported by facts.
    Thanks Mike
    Dingo

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous2:23 am

    If this is true... And I dare say it may very well be. Any law enacted by the current regime is void.
    Any act passed by the current regime is void.
    Any thing they do is completely void.
    BEE is void.
    Taxes are void.
    Speeding laws are void.
    Anything but Gods moral law is void.

    Can you prove that this is in fact the case. That would constitute prima facie cause for any action by the NP or ANC after that date to be illegal and therefore not binding on the populace of South Africa... Hmmm??? Would a court uphold it though???


    So...
    Are YOU still paying the illegal TAXES of an illegitimate regime?
    Are YOU still obeying the illegal LAWS of an illegitimate regime?

    I think it is time WE stopped. A little white anarchy may be called for. Good luck feeding the masses without the white mans "money-tap"..

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes Anonymous 2.23am. It is an interesting thought isn’t it?

    The Constitution of 1983 can be read here. http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/83cons.htm

    The population registration act of 1950 can be read here click on the pdf symbol.

    http://www.disa.ukzn.ac.za/index.php?option=com_displaydc&recordID=leg19500707.028.020.030

    I am not a lawyer, but it is quite simple actually. The constitution spells out the powers of the president and the government. The constitution of 1983 was based on three chambers of government for whites, coloureds and Indians.

    What a white, coloured or Indian was, was defined in the Population registration Act of 1950.

    If you do away with this act, you automatically do away with the constitution. You cannot have a government made up of whites coloureds and Indians, but you do away with the law that divided the people into these classifications.

    The constitution became Null and void and therefore the Government became null and void.

    They had no mandate to rule even one day longer. They should have stepped down the day FW de Klerk scrapped the Population Registration Act. They did not. The constitution was a piece of useless paper after that.

    It meant that the NP had just as much right to call a referendum as the Indians had or the coloureds…which was ZERO. De Klerk and his henchmen were an illegal government. In fact they were still drawing fat salaries at the time and are still getting fat pensions for their time as an illegal government, which constitutes fraud.

    Remember that De Klerk said in parliament on 1st of Feb 1991 that they had another look at the Constitution and that they could scrap the population registration act if they had some interim transitional sytems in place.

    The TEC or Transitional Executive Council was only formed in September 1993. De Klerk scrapped the Population Registration Act in July 1991. He had no interim systems in place. This means that South Africa had a ghost, self appointed government called the NP for over two years…and nobody noticed or asked questions.

    The NP and De Klerk had no right to be in office.

    I have studied the 1983 constitution as well as the population registration Act and there is nothing in there that can convince me otherwise.

    Somebody with more knowledge of the law must come up with a better interpretation and convince me otherwise, because as far as I can see, there was no way the NP could govern a day longer after De Klerk scrapped the population registration act. There was no way any WHITE party could claim to be in charge of the government. When he scrapped that act, he basically made all SA citizens the same with the same rights including the right to vote.

    He had no right to call a referendum, let alone a whites only referendum.

    When he scrapped that act, he should have stepped down along with his entire cabinet and called for multi-racial elections.

    And yes, everything that happened since then was a fraud. AA, BEE, EVERYTHING…including the illegitimate ANC regime.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:02 pm

    Mike... Thanks for the reply...

    So... Where does that leave us?

    On one hand we are ruled and lorded over by an illegitimate regime who have passed a number of illegitimate laws such as BEE, AA, FCA, etc. while extorting illegitimate monies from us called "income tax", 30% of which is "lost" by the same illegitimate regime annually.

    On the other hand they have very real policemen and soldiers with very real guns that fire very real bullets and very real jails filled with very real sodomites who would "really" love to meet you should you transgress one of the illegitimate laws.

    Oh the joys of betrayal...

    As the government was illegitimate at the time, could they have even called for an election?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous4:08 pm

    The betrayal of the Afrikaaners by those politicians is one of the greatest betrayals in the history of politics. Almost unbelievable.

    F--k rugby. Afrikaaner culture was being destroyed by law, but afrikaaner men were too busy watching rugby. The average Afrikaaner man should have been focused on politics, not rugby.

    ReplyDelete
  9. First of all South Africa was an illegitimate State from day one as it was created by British legislation in the British Parliament. Some Afrikaans speakers part of the British puppet regime were even on hand to oversee its passage. How can you be surprised that a State created by traitors would then culminate in more traitors? The State had no loyal moorings to begin with. The South Africa Act of 1909 was an illegitimate & imperial act as it was imposed onto the entire population without any authentic consultation. The Vereeniging Treaty was ratified upon duress [ President Steyn of the OVS & General de Wet were OPPOSED to signing it ] as the British were in the process of exterminating the Boer people / nation. Not the Afrikaners as the British & Afrikaners were then still working together for the most part & the British only rounded up Boers into the concentration camps & used a number of Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners to help round the Boers up. ] Now F W de Klerk was seen to have had a "mandate" to govern for five years after he was elected [ in 1989 ergo why they had to schedule a multi racial election by 1994 ] . Therefore the abolition of the Population Registration Act or even the Constitution itself does not necessarily nullify de Klerk's "mandate" to govern as it could be seen as a "caretaker" role [ a per the five year "mandate" he acquired upon being elected in September 1989 ] which he could have had until September 1994. But as I noted: this is neither here nor there as the entire edifice of South Africa was a monumental lie as it was built on an illegitimate piece of foreign legislation.

    Now I see that you are up to your old anti-Boer semantics again by inferring that most "Boers" [ which is conveniently NEVER defined! ] fought on the side of the British during the Maritz Rebellion. You infer this by deliberately inferring that all of the White Afrikaans speakers on the side of the South African government were "Boers" when in fact the vast majority if them were Cape Dutch descendents. I caught you before using this old discredited trick when you outrageously & ignorantly asserted that "Boer Generals ran South Africa" until Malan [ who himself was not a Boer ] when in reality Hertzog & Smuts were from the Cape Dutch community who simply went over to fight on the side of the Boers. Just like many Russians / Irish & Americans did. But no one ever calls them "Boers" for having done so. If a Welshman fights to maintain the independence of Scotland: this act does not then make the Welshman a Scot. Please can you kindly tell us what the fuck is a "former Boer"?! How the fuck do Boers lose their ethnicity / identity by coming under British control? Did the Irish loose their identity when they came under British control? Did the Canadiens loose their identity when the came under British control?

    The Canadiens aka Quebecois still speak French & retained their own unique customs & French based law. The telling phrase "former Boer" betrays a total contempt for Boer identity & your erroneous belief that all White Afrikaans speakers were "Boers" when the Boers have only ever been the SMALLER segment of the White Afrikaans speakers. The Boers are from the anti-colonial impoverished folks who developed on the Cape frontier circa late 1600 to 1735. The vast majority of the Afrikaners are from the Cape Dutch who developed in the south western Cape region.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Boers are not & have NEVER been the only group of White Afrikaans speakers in Southern Africa. Why do you & some other anti-Boer propagandists like to convey the erroneous & dangerous notion that the Boers are the ONLY group of White Afrikaans speakers when in fact they have always been the SMALLEST group of White Afrikaans speakers. The Cape Dutch [ who initiated the term Afrikaner in a usurping political context & as well as the term Afrikaans ] have always been LARGER than the smaller Boer population of the frontier. You are as bad as the ignorant Rhodesian born Jan Lamprecht who went on American alternative radio to talk about "Afrikaner Republics" when the Afrikaners had yet to emerge among the Cape Dutch [ as it was long before the Afrikaners were even trying to claim the Boers via the Afrikaner Bond ] & then he went on to outrageously talk about a "Boer conspiracy" [ in an era when the Boers were lumped in with the Cape Dutch as "Afrikaners" as part of a political based coalition ] when most of those folks were not even from the Boer population.

    What the hell is it with this myopic perspective when it comes to the FULL record concerning the White Afrikaans speakers? How do you expect to make sense of the Maritz Rebellion [ of which you even express your own confusion over ] when you fail to realize that the Afrikaners on the side of the British were only doing what they have ALWAYS done [ read more in the book: Cecil Rhodes and the Cape Afrikaners. ] while a significant number of the Boers were doing what they have always done. This is why the Afrikaner establishment organized AGAINST the Boers of the 1940s when they were trying to restore their Boer Republics once again. Something that you curiously also do not support despite all your fatuous blather about "Boers" which is a term you abuse as a euphemism for some sort of an anti-Boer agenda. The fact that you accuse Boers for the actions of the Afrikaners DEMONSTRATES an obvious anti-Boer agenda on your part.

    What is the point of conflating the two groups when they have different histories & perspectives as documented & noted.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon. Boer identity was initially destroyed by the imposition of the Afrikaner designation. History is just repeating itself. The Boer people have to get the Afrikaner out of their soul [ to quote one of the founders of the Transvaal Separatists think tank ] if they are to have any hope in reacquiring any form of sustainable long range self determination.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, I see that Boer fanatic “Ron” Republican 1775, is back with his divisive pseudo Afrikaner/Boer history.

    Ron, you are hilarious when you foam at the mouth. I just hope you don’t teach the kids in your class this crap? Are you? Rather stick to the ANC curriculum, because although absurd as it is, it is closer to the truth than your rubbish.

    Your comment is as confusing and “deurmekaar” as a chameleon on a Smartie box. I don’t know where to start. I have followed your diatribe on other forums and here are a few things that I interpreted from your posts and comments.
    Let us start with your Afrikaners/Cape Dutch are not Boers issue.

    1. All Boers were formerly from the Cape Colony so they were all “Cape Dutch”. When they trekked north in 1834, they were called Voortrekkers. The British called them Boers as a derogatory term during the two Anglo/Boer wars. Even President Paul Kruger referred to himself as an “Afrikaner”.

    2. Cape Afrikaners and Afrikaners from the Freestate or Transvaal (the two former Boer Republics) and the Afrikaners from Natal as well as Namibia all speak the same language namely Afrikaans.

    3. Regional dialects do exist but you claim that “Boers” speak “Eastern Cape Afrikaans” and that it is a different language. This is false. Apart from a few comical accents and phrases it is the same language. There is no dictionary in Boeraans. There is no course in Boeraans. There is only one language, Afrikaans. In fact there is a bigger difference between German dialects and English dialects than Transvaler Afrikaans and Namibian Afrikaans. People who speak Afrikaans are Afrikaners. Cape Coloureds do not speak Afrikaans and therefore do not qualify as Afrikaners or even Afrikaanses. God only knows what it is they speak, but it is not Afrikaans. Their language is as basterdised as their genes.

    4. Another “difference” that I saw is that “Boers” have a “different” religion. Afrikaners are Dutch Reform (NGK) and the “Boers” are Hervormde Kerk (NHK). The NHK is also referred to as the “Doppers”. The NHK was the state church of the Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek (Transvaal), but not of the Free State. In the Free State it was the NGK. So Boers were both NGK and NHK and it is not a problem, because both are Calvinist churches and the only difference is that the NGK sings Psalms and Hymns and the NHK sings only Psalms. There “Dominees” follow the same course at university and can serve in any of the three Calvinist sister churches.

    5. Another of your so called “differences is that the Boers have (always) strived for Freedom and the Afrikaners never did. This is nonsense as well as you can see from the PRAAG website, the FF+, Afriforum, the Afrikaner Weerstands Beweging (AWB) etc, that Afrikaners have been striving for an own homeland for many years, not necessarily the restoration of the two Boer Republics.

    6. Further, if Eugene Terreblanche was a “Boer” and frequently waved the Boer Flag, why did he call his organization the Afrikaner Weerstands Beweging (Afrikaner Resistance Movement)? Why not the “Boer” Resistance Movement?

    7. There is no difference between Boers and Afrikaners. They are synonyms.

    8. Since 1902 Transvalers and Freestaters and Cape and Natal Afrikaners all intermarried and migrated throughout the country they are today ONE people known as the Afrikaners. Boers is an outdated anachronistic and for some whites that I know from Pretoria even a derogatory term. They say straight that the word “Boer” is what blacks call them when they actually want to call them “Kaffirs”.

    9. Today there is no “Afrikaans Culture” and “Boer Culture”. It is one and the same thing, namely Afrikaans Culture. The same race, the same language, the same songs the same poetry the same sports, the same universities, the same religion, all the same.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 10. Another one of your favourite “differences” is that “Boers” are more German and Afrikaners are more Dutch…which begs several questions…

    11. Why is the language of the Boers then Afrikaans which is more Dutch than German?

    12. Why are the Boers in their religion more Calvinist and not Lutheran Evangelical. Their church is called the Dutch Reform and the Dutch Hervormde Kerk, not the German or Lutheran Evangelical Church as it always was in Germany?

    13. Although there were many Boer Generals with German surnames such as Hertzog, Maritz and Schoeman there were more with other western European surnames such as French or Dutch surnames or even Spanish and Portuguese surnames such as De Wet, Botha, De La Rey, Fourie, Fereira, Cronje, etc.

    14. I never included Malan as a Boer General.

    15. I said every single prime minister of the Union of South Africa up until Malan was a Boer General, that means Botha, Smuts, Hertzog, and Smuts again were all Boer Generals. All subsequent Prime Ministers and Presidents were Afrikaners except maybe Verwoerd who was originally from the Netherlands. It is a historical fact.

    16. PW Botha’s father fought in a Boer Komando, his mother interned in a boer concentration camp. PW Botha comes from the Boer Republic Freestate. He is one of the biggest traitors of SA who started the policy of “Power Sharing” with blacks.

    17. De Klerk, was born in the former Boer Republic of ZAR (Transvaal) and his whole family were from prominent Boer roots, not from the Cape. I know it is difficult for you to swallow and come to grips with, but it is the truth. Read De Klerk’s biography.
    18. If there is any other criteria that you can somehow dream up that distinguishes between Afrikaners and Boers, then please let us know.

    19. You ask…rather crudely in your usual foaming around the mouth way, “Please can you kindly tell us what the fuck is a "former Boer"?! How the fuck do Boers lose their ethnicity / identity by coming under British control?”…Quite easy Ron, Afrikaners or as you like to refer to them “Boers” are made up of Western European people such as the Dutch, Belgians, French, German, etc. We do not refer to them as Germans, Dutch or French anymore. They have lost their original identity. They became Afrikaners. It is really that simple. People do in fact lose their identity. Australians are mostly from the British Isles, but today have a new identity. Same with Canadians and New Zealanders. The Boers were also mixed and absorbed and today there is no difference between a Boer and an Afrikaner.

    20. OK back to FW de Klerk and his mandate in 1990.

    21. De Klerk had a mandate that excluded the majority South Africans, the Blacks. The 1983 constitution was drawn up around those racial lines. If De Klerk did away with the Population Registration Act, it meant that all South Africans would immediately become equal before the law. Any party or president would then need a new mandate from ALL the people of South Africa, not just from the whites. De Klerk made himself and his Party redundant when he did away with the Population Registration Act. Even the NP knew it and therefore was reluctant to do it at first. De Klerk should have vacated his seat. He had no right to stay on, not even in a “supervisory role” as you say. He should have fucked off.

    22. I am not sure where you get this childish paranoia and absurdity from that I have a so called “Anti-Boer agenda” simply because I see Boers and Afrikaners as one and the same thing. What is it Ron…? Everyone who disagrees with your Pseudo Historical Junk is suddenly an “Anti-Boer, Cape Dutch, Broederbond, traitor or something”? Please…grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 23. Truth is that YOU, Ron, is the one with an agenda and I will expose that now.

    24. There are many honourable and genuine people striving for the Freedom of the Afrikaners, even some who strive for the restoration of the former Boer Republics. You, Ron, are not one of them.

    25. You are an ANC agent pretending to be a fanatical, Rightwing Looney…a foaming-at-the-mouth, Nut-job and pseudo historian trying to re-establish the Boer Republics with your fellow nutjobs.

    26. It undermines genuine Afrikaners striving for genuine Afrikaner Freedom. By association people must think that all Afrikaners striving for Freedom are nut-jobs like you and your Boereverneuker, fraudster buddy Theuns Cloete.

    27. It is first of all a classical divide and rule strategy. Divide the Afrikaner community and let them fight over petty crap such as who is a Boer and what is an Afrikaner?

    28. In order to do it you need to create your nut-job Boer Group and then accuse all Afrikaners of being “traitors” and “collaborators” and “conspirators” with the British so that the simpletons come over to your side. Pretty much the same thing as George Bush with his, “You are either on our side or you are terrorists” type of psychology.

    29. You further divide the Afrikaners into pseudo anachronistic crap terms such as “Cape Dutch” and “Boers”. There are no more Cape Dutch and or Boers. There is but one nation today referred to as The Afrikaners. Just like we do not talk about Vikings today, we talk about Danish, Swedish or Norwegian people. There was a time that they were known as Vikings, but not anymore.

    30. Another one of your tactics is to solicit sympathy with the underdog stating that “the Boers have only ever been the SMALLER segment of the White Afrikaans speakers.”

    31. It is clear that in your mind the Afrikaners/Cape Dutch are all the traitors and the Boers were the Angelic Freedom fighters, ten foot tall, etc. True. The Boers were tough and excellent freedom fighters and I would have supported their cause 100% back then. Fact is that the Boers had a huge number of deserters as well as traitors whom they frequently executed by firing squad as can be read in the book, “Boereverraaier” by Albert Blake. He has several Masters in History and is also a lawyer and ex soldier who served on the Namibian Angola border.

    32. There were 22,000 Bittereinders against 20,000 hensoppers and 5564 armed joiners amongst the Boers. http://www.rapport.co.za/Boeke/Nuus/Eerlike-aangrypende-vrat-op-Boere-lyf-20101210

    33. It is one thing to glorify the Boers , but you have to be historically objective and see the Boers in their totality. They were not supermen, they were normal farmers who had families back home and crops to harvest.

    34. Read the book. You will be shocked.

    35. It is clear what in your eyes the difference between Boer and Afrikaner is. Someone is a Boer only until he betrays the Boers then he automatically becomes an Afrikaner. What laughable junk.

    36. Ron, We should study history and learn from our mistakes so that we do not repeat them. We should unite, not divide ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:00 pm

      Question, Regardless of all these varying interpretations, is it so hard to realize that a large portion of the Population considers them selves Boer and are very proud of this "Identity" and to simply acknowledge and recognize these people as such?

      I have been reading both sides and both sides present compelling arguments-nonetheless, the above seems to be the simplest avenue to follow rather then this endless debate which in fact, favors those who identify themselves as Boer.

      Whole libraries can be created to intellectualize these debates but one fact and only one is important and it is as stated above. To repeat. These people, regardless of their numbers, consider themselves to be Boer and that cannot be argued away. Boers have been ostracized, bastardized and maligned ever since the British began their campaign of the
      first ethnic and cultural genocide of the Boers. That is the story that must be told. It must be known how in the name of greed for the gold and diamonds of the Boer Republics, that these people were cheated out of their recognized Republics.

      People must know how the Boers were coerced into signing the Treaty of Vereeniging, which by the way was illegal due to the required referendum needed to pass this travesty of a Treaty.

      Is this really so hard? If you ever want peace between the Boer and the Afrikaner then present their Truth!

      This is what may heal the divide between the Boer and Afrikaner, not the continued assault, invalidation and denial of their right to exist in their own Republics

      Delete
  15. Republican1795.9:20 pm

    Well you can not even have an honest debate about this crucial topic without resorting to straw man argument / lies & outright distortions. I answered all of these points earlier when you debated them last year. I guess you did not pay attention to them or are a demagogue with an agenda to subvert Boer self determination.

    Once again you either are totally ignorant of the ACTUAL history or are DELIBERATELY distorting. Since you have now OPENLY claimed that the ANC version of history is "closer to the truth" than the FACTS I have present should tell everyone all they need to know about you. The Cape Dutch can not possibly be Boers as the Boers are a SPECIFIC people who were formed on the Cape frontier OUTSIDE from & AWAY from the folks who would later be called the Cape Dutch.

    The Cape Dutch have NEVER been called Boers & even your good friend Professor Hermann Giliomee ADMITTED in his skewed writings that the term Boer was ONLY ever applied to the folks of the Cape frontier. This fact alone should cause this issue to be forever settled.

    1. No. You are using an ILLEGITIMATE & INCORRECT pseudo argument because the Boers developed on the northern & eastern Cape frontier AWAY from where the Cape Dutch later developed. You are incorrectly calling the Boers "Cape Dutch" when they are not even from the Cape Dutch as they emerged long before the term Cape Dutch was even applied to the folks of the Western Cape. The term Voorterkker was not a common term of the era & was not used en mass until the Afrikaner Broederdond REWROTE history & applied that term to the trekkers. All cultural groups get their names from derogatory terms but the therm Boer was taken from Trekboer. The Trekboers were the ancestors of the Boers & they certainly were not the ancestors of the Cape Dutch - so how the HELL can the Cape Dutch "be Boers" when the Cape Dutch are not even descended from the same people as the Boers are!!!!! Paul Kruger referred to himself as a Boer in all his correspondence. Furthermore it was not unusual for Boers to refer to themselves as "Afrikaners" BUT they meant in in a general GEOGRAPHIC manner & NOT IN THE SENSE that they saw themselves as part of the Cape Dutch. Professor Wallace Mills [ among others ] have opemly stted that the Boers DID NOT CONSIDER THEMSELVES to be part of the Cape Dutch! Read more at this link. Yet you who has NO TRAINING OR INTEREST IN THE ACTUAL HISTORY of the Boer people deign substitute your INCOMPLETE analysis with that of an expert professor.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Republican1795.9:22 pm

    Continuation.

    2. I told you before: IT IS IRRELEVANT the that Cape Dutch & Boers "speak the same language"! The Quebecois & Acdians ALSO speak the same language BUT they are two DISTINCT groups with their won histories just like the Cape Dutch & the Boers. The Griquas & Cape Malays ALSO speak "the same language" as the Cape Dutch & the Boer yet you do not view them as all one group. Furthermore: historians have classified the dialect of the Boers as Eastern Border Afrikaans. It is all very well for you to arrogantly say to me: "Don't come here with Eastern Border Afrikaans" when that is the dialect of the Boer people. I do not see your Cape Dutch folks speaking Eastern Border Afrikaans so please dispense with this Boer dispossessing claptrap.

    3. Well well well. Listen you liar. I have told you NUMEROUS times now that I NEVER claimed that Eastern Border Afrikaans was a separate LANGUAGE! But you are STILL insisting that I do when I NEVER said so. This constant distortion on your part has forever exposed you for the liar that you are. I noted that HISTORIANS have classified Eastern Border Afrikaans as a distinct DIALECT not a distinct language. There is difference. Hey distorting dimwit. There was once no dictionary or "Bible" [ remember that odd one? ] in Afrikaans either for centuries. So by your reasoning then the Boers / Afrikaners / Griquas etc "did not exist" then? There is no Bible in Acadian French either. But do the Acadians not exist then? The WHOLE world can see what sort of dispossessing game you are playing & you are now openly exposing yourself as having a clear anti-Boer agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Republican1795.9:23 pm

    There you go once again demagoging because Namibian Afrikaans is DIRECTLY from the Eastern Border Afrikaans of the Boers! You are hoping no one will notice that. The notion that people who speak Afrikaans are Afrikaners was the dangerous MYTHOLOGY promoted by the British & the Afrikaners! Which was designed to DESTROY the identity of the Boers! The fact that you PARROT this dangerous mythology further exposes you as having an anti-Boer agenda. Furthermore the Afrikaner Bond promotes the notion that Coloureds ARE Afrikaners & if you actually knew your history you would know that the Coloureds appropriated the term Afrikaner for themselves in the early 19th cent LONG before the Cape Dutch began to appropriate it. Then you engage in FURTHER cognitive dissonance because the Coloureds are the ORIGINATORS of the Afrikaans language & the fact that you neglect to realize this further destroys whatever credibility you ever hoped to have. If it were not for the Malays attempts at learning Dutch: Afrikaans as we know it would never have emerged! Afrikaans was not created in vacuum but rather from the interaction among the various peoples the VOC dumped at the Cape White & Asian alike. The various White & Coloured groups simply adopted their own dialects of Afrikaans.

    Do not qualify as Afrikaner? Who the hell are you to make such myopic pronouncements? You have no power to PREVENT them from claiming the designation. They called themselves Afrikaners LONG before the Cape Dutch ever did. You are totally lost in your own delusional rhetoric. You are clinging to an OUTDATED 1950s Afrikaner Nationalist definition of the term Afrikaner. You are totally out of touch with reality because Afrikaans is simply a designation for the lingua franca which developed at the Cape spoken by Coloured & White alike. Claiming that only White people speak Afrikaans is absurd as claiming that only Canadians speak North American English. Do you even realize how you have proven my previous point that you deny? The Boers speak their own DIALECT [ not language ] of Afrikaans in the same way that the Cape Coloureds speak their own dialect of Afrikaans. Also in the same way the Qebecois speak their own dialect of French.

    4. The Boers do not adhere to a single religion & Professor André Du Toit has even asserted that the Boers were not known as particularly religious prior to the second Anglo-Boer War so you are once again presenting a straw man argument. The fact that the Boers were excommunicated from the Dutch Reformed Church over the Great Trek was the relevant point leading to the establishment of the Dopper sect. Once again the Boers do not have to have their "own" religion to be a distinct group as the Acadians share the same religion as the Quebecois but are of course a distinct group.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Republican1795.9:25 pm

    5. The Cape Dutch have NEVER struggled for freedom & this is on the historical record. Theuns Cloete [ a Boer Patriot that you threatened to JAIL for the crime of advocating for the freedom of the Boer people! ] has publicly observed this as well. The PRAAG website is run by a BOER descendent named Dan Roodt. He is one of many Boers calling themselves "Afrikaners" & allowing themselves to be usurped by the Afrikaners. The membership of the AWB was composed virtually entirely of Boer descendents which I have stated to you BEFORE but I see that you still CLING to your old discredited lies aimed at the Afrikaner usurpation of the Boer Nation.

    6. This was already answered last year in the LAST debate we had in this topic. Adriana Stuijt correctly noted that Terre'Blanche was CONFUSED over his ethnic identity [ as a lot of Boers were made to be since the Broederbond rewrote their history ]. Terre'Blanche also probably named his organization as such in order to woo those Afrikaners of Cape Dutch origin as well. But one will notice that the vast majority of his membership came from Boer descendents. That should tell you something & if it does not than you are clearly acting as an apologist for the subjugation of the Boer Nation despite your denial.

    7. The Boers are as different from the Cape Dutch Afrikaners as the Acadians are different from the Quebecois. The Boers are the folks who are descended from the Trekboers. The Trekboers were the nomadic pastorialists who established the reality of a Boer people which would NEVER HAVE COME ABOUT without them. If the Trekboers never emerged: there would be no Boer people. The Cape Dutch never developed into Boers so claiming that there is no difference is to be totally IGNORANT of the history of the region.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Republican1795.9:26 pm

    Now we all want to know: why are you so intent on DISPOSSESSING the identity of the Boer people by lumping into the Cape Dutch descended population who have historically worked against them? Why should the Boers be aligned with an anti-Boer population group who are aligned with the enemies of the Boer people? Why does the Afrikaner Sanlam FINANCE high ranking ANC politicians? Why does the Afrikaner Bond PROP up the ANC & why are they actively part of it? Why must the Boer people SUBMIT to being subjugated by a population group which is more interested in maintaining the status quo?

    The difference between Boer & Afrikaner has been noted by various personalities. The following notable folks ALL recognize the distinction between Afrikaner & Boer: Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio & Boer Separatist / Adriana Stuijt: a Dutch born former South African journalist / the late Robert van Tonder of the Boerestaat Party & founder of Randburg / William McWhirter of Time Magazine / Noel Mostert former Canadian journalist.

    8. This is a blatant lie of the worst order. None other than Theuns Cloete publicly noted that the Boers WERE NOT ALLOWED to marry the Cape Dutch: so how the hell could they have "intermarried" with them? Now while some did skirt the prohibition - it is irrelevant to the continued existence of the Boer people because the Boers have not been "absorbed" into the Afrikaners as you ludicrously tried to claim prior. The term Boer was only made into a "derogatory" term for the EXPRESS purpose to get the Boers to shun their own identity. Now look here: you are an ADMITTED former "liberal" [ & I am not so sure on the former part ] & the notion that the term Boer is "derogatory" is a big talking point among them. They did this because they knew that most Boers were conservative & could not have effectively conditioned them into thinking of themselves as Afrikaners without first turning the Boer designation into a derogatory term. The term Afrikaner is equally derogatory to many Boers as well.

    9. Wrong. All those songs & poetry were part of an Afrikaner drive to create a "single culture" via dispossessing the Boers in the first place. So once again you are engaging in a straw man argument. I could legitimately say to you: do not come here with "same culture" nonsense. The fact that the Afrikaners dispossessed & hijacked the Boers does not legitimize the erroneous assertion of a "single" culture. The Cape Dutch increasingly want NOTHING to do with Boer history at any rate so you are fighting a LOOSING battle & when the Cape Dutch have finally divorced themselves from the Boers I wonder what delusional apologetic nonsense you will come up with.

    10. Most of the Germans that arrived in the 1700s settled DIRECTLY in the north eastern Cape where the Boers developed. Once again you do not follow that I ACTUALLY say as I have long noted that few arrivals who settled the Cape are from the Dutch. That includes the so called Cape Dutch.

    11. The Boers developed a dialect which sprang from the lingua franca developed at the Cape. Your erroneous assertion that it "must" have more German in it is once again a ridiculous straw man argument. The French Huguenots were similarly absorbed leaving very little trace of French in Afrikaans. But for some reason you constantly like to infer that the there "must" be some German in the Boer's dialect.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Republican1795.9:52 pm

    12. This is another ridiculous straw man argument. Just as the Scots who were absorbed into the Quebecois did not alter the Catholic religion of the Quebecois.

    13. I have never disputed that point & if you ever truly bothered to really read what I write you would have known that I have LONG since noted that French & other roots of the Boers. The Germans were ABSORBED into the Boers: they did not DISPLACE them as you are disingenuously attempting to infer. Though it turns out that the VOC brought out more Germans to the Cape than Dutch.

    14. No but you missed the point. The point was not about Generals. Malan was ALSO not a Boer as he was from the Cape Dutch population.

    15. No it is NOT a historical fact. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Hertzog & Smuts to have ever been Boers!!!!! This is the SALIENT point you NEVER confront. If a Welshman fights in the Scottish army: he can never be called a "Scottish General". The term Boer is not a civil term. Fighting with the Boers does not make one a Boer. Once must be BORN into the Boer people to be a Boer. Verwoerd was one of the most "Afrikaner" Afrikaners in the history of the Afrikaners! Despite not being born in Africa. Verwoerd himself even NOTED that he was "an extreme Afrikaner"! He ADMITTED himself that he was an Afrikaner & an EXTREME Afrikaner at that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Republican1795.9:53 pm

    16. P W Botha is EXACTLY like the case of Dan Roodt. IE: a Boer who was conditioned to view himself as an Afrikaner. It is all very well to use his Boer ethnicity to imply that "it was all the Boers' fault" while PURPOSELY neglecting the Boer attempts at regaining their stolen republics as occurred with Robert van Tonder since 1961 & with Eugene Terre'Blanche since 1984 & with Fritz Meyer as well. Traitors of SA? Why the hell should there be any loyalty to a macro State which was IMPOSED & created on the backs of 24 000 dead Boer children? Verweord & Botha were both traitors to the Boer people! Furthermore: as misguided as Botha's consociationalist approach was: it was entirely as symptom of the macro State created by Britain which lumped everyone under a single administration for the first time ever.

    17. Just another straw man argument as I never denied that F W de Klerk was part Boer descent. You like to infer that I do not recognize the Boer descendent role in the selling out of right of the Boer people to their right to self determination. You can add Roelf Meyer & Pik Botha to this list as well. The point I make [ which you carefully sidestep ] is the fact that the decisions were made by the Cape Dutch descended Afrikaner leadership & the Broederbond in particular. But for obvious anti-Boer propagandistic reasons like to ignore this & infer that the smaller Boer people had the same decision making power as the larger Cape Dutch population.

    18. The only thing that matters is how the Boers view themselves & they sure as hell do not see themselves as being part of the Cape Dutch as Professor Wallace Mills rightly noted.

    19. How rich to accuse myself of crude conduct when YOUR crude & downright scatological conduct is notorious. No. The Boers are not Afrikaners. This has been clarified ad nauseum by folks more knowledgeable them myself such as Professor Wallace Mills / journalist Adriana Stuijt / Theuns Cloete etc. You are promoting a total inappropriate comparison. The Boers NEVER lost their identity in the same manner as their European ancestors did when the Boers & Cape Dutch were being formed. The Afrikaners simply hijacked the Boers but they NEVER extinguished the Boer people! This is an important point that you sidestep from. With the Boer identity you Afrikaners would have had NO identity to base yours on as you required to appropriate the Boers history in order to justify colonizing their lands & preventing them from reclaiming their land.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Republican1795.9:55 pm

    22. Well if it walks like a duck... The truths hurts doesn't it. Ironic that you use that line in your title. You have a clear anti-Boer agenda because you deliberately lump the actual Boer people in with the Cape Dutch ad nauseum & get irate whenever anyone calls you on it. If Boers & Afrikaners are so "one & the same thing" then why do the Afrikaners [ particularly the Afrikaner leadership ] work so hard AGAINST the Boer people? Why do the Cape Dutch Afrikaners increasingly want NOTHING to do with Boer history? I find it most telling that you accuse me of "pseudo historical junk" when everything I noted is ON THE HISTORICAL record & noted by eminent professors. You shamelessly like to act as though all of the information I presented is pulled out of thin air when I have provided numerous links within the articles I have written on the topic.

    23. The fact of the matter is that the only one with an agenda here is you because you ROUTINELY propagandize against the Boer people.

    24. The term Afrikaner was promoted by the British in order to STOP the Boers from reclaiming their Boer Republics. The fact that you promote this term that was promoted by the enemy says it all. You know FULL well that so long as the Boers are conditioned to view themselves as Afrikaners that they will NEVER acquire any freedom because you also know that the Afrikaner leadership is controlled.

    25. What a desperate joke. This has totally confirmed to me who you really are as I have LONG suspected it. The only person who is an ANC agent here is clearly you because it was YOU who ran that exposed "false flag" blog that was aimed at making White South Africans look like racial extremists. I have spent years of my life trying to get Westerners to see that White South Africans are not the one dimensional media stereotype that you clearly relish in promoting. BUT YOU ON THE OTHER HAND GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to portray White people as imbalanced extremists? Why is that Mike? [ if that is you real name. ] Why do you like to send the message to the rest of the world of the most EXTREME example? I have long since been called a Right Wing nut for simply stating that facts. Yet all I see from you is someone intentionally STIRRING the pot hoping to create a radial image of White people so that the State can be "justified" in "eliminating" them. Isn't that right Mike? Is that not what ALL THIS INVECTIVE BULLSHIT is all about. Getting a desired result so that when you have taken your 30 pieces of silver you will vanish while the State eliminates the rest of us over the invective that YOU posted.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Republican1795.9:57 pm

    26. Once again. I am not against Afrikaners looking for freedom. Though they are better off joining up with the Boers. All I ever pointed out was that the Boers are not EVER going to find the freedom that they seek if they continue to be subjugated by the Afrikaners. The Afrikaner leadership is ALIGNED with the ANC & is on board with the dispensation. You can try & duck & hide from this all you want but those are the facts. What a joke for you to try to push this line of reasoning when you are the MAIN author of a blog which was totally AIMED at trying to make White South Africans look like mad nut jobs! You sir take the cake as usual. Your hatred against Theuns Cloete is VERY telling because back when you were still a "liberal" he was busy trying to free his people. The fact the he is STILL trying to free his people gives ANC agents like you a real headache which you betray in your constant disdain for him & his goal of Boer independence & self determination.

    27. Another straw man argument. There is no Afrikaner "community" to "divide" because it simply does not exist. Nor has it ever. It was only ever a mythology promoted by the British in order to DESTROY the identity if the Boer people to subjugate them within a macro State structure / dispensation. The entire notion of an Afrikaner was aimed at diving the Boers because it led to the development of those who identified themselves as Afrikaners working to take control of a macro state & patriotic Boers who tried to restore their republics but were prevented by the Afrikaner Nationalists & folks like you. I am sure it was no accident that you promoted the HNP on that other blog knowing full well that it is a trap to prevent the Boers from obtaining self determination.

    28. Another total straw man argument. Furthermore the British created the macro State & recruited the notion of an Afrikaner to administer it as a "surrogate colonial regime". This is all on the historical record.

    29. No. Another lie. Those are the historically legitimate terms with which the two main White Afrikaans speaking populations were always called. I do not believe in division as I have called for everyone to stand with the Boer people. The fact that you do not is rather telling. The Cape Dutch no longer call themselves as such by they still exist as a distinct people. The notion of an Afrikaner was simply a political based myth aimed at cobbling together an UNSTABLE language based coalition the purposes of wresting the macro State from the English speakers period. The term Afrikaner serves no useful or valid purpose today as it is quickly being reclaimed by the Coloured originators of the term. While you cling to an OUTDATED / anachronistic use of the term which went out of style by the late 1970s. The Vikings were not an ethnic group as they were a series of Scandinavian groups who became raiders. I corrected you on this BEFORE but yet you persist in your ignorance as you do with this whole topic.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Republican1795.10:00 pm

    30. That fact has got nothing to do with "sympathy" [ from whom incidentally as I seem to recall you saying quite recently & I quote: "no one gave a fuck about the Boers". ] but simply about noting that the Boers are OUTNUMBERED by the Afrikaners of Cape Dutch origin hence will not be able to find any self determination so long as they are politically tethered to them. This is a cold hard fact that you try to obscure but it at the crux of why Boer self determination is routinely subverted.

    31. Another straw man argument as I have routinely noted the numerous Boer descendents who have worked against Boer self determination - but often as Afrikaners so the Afrikaner mentality does bear a lot of blame though. The notion of an Afrikaner was created to get Afrikaans speakers to work WITHIN an illegitimate macro State thereby SUPPLANTING the Boer tradition of working to regain their own republics.

    33. Distortion. I have never "glorified" the Boers. Pointing out how they are subjugated & are routinely subverted is not about "glorifying" them but about doing justice to & being true to their centuries long struggle for self determination. Something that you are oddly against [ not so oddly now ] except when they do so under Afrikaner tutelage which of course is controlled.

    35. Another straw man argument. Furthermore those Boer descendents who "betrayed" the Boers in fact did so as openly identified Afrikaners working for an open Afrikaner agenda. That too is on the record.

    36. This from someone who is widely known as divisive & is working to divide the Boer people by trying to convince them that that should align with the Afrikaner agenda. The Boers are generally standing together on the notion of Boer self determination. But your futile attempts at convincing them that they are just a bunch of "Afrikaners" only serves to divide the Boers & to DILUTE their inherent strength. The Afrikaners know what they want: a united macro state wherein they strive to exercise political rights as a "minority" group. The Boers know what they want: restored republics & or self determination as a nation.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Republican1795.10:15 pm

    Responding here was probably the worst thing you could have ever done because prior I was not certain whether you were an intelligence agent posing as an extremist blogger but now it is all but certain. I also was not entirely sure whether you were that agent provocateur known as Afrikaner but now that appears certain too as you used the EXACT same points & terms as he. This is disappointing because I held out hope that you were at least in some misguided way still on the side of Boer & Afrikaans freedom but the fact that you DELIBERATELY misrepresented & distorted my positions ad nauseum despite having been repeatedly corrected only cements this realization.

    I also find it telling that you say Theuns Cloete is "my buddy" when in fact he has appeared on the Right Perspective 3 times & once on the Newsguy's radio program & all I ever did was reference his valid points he made on those programs.

    I also realize more than ever now that you were also RWR & Blueskyes as well & that you will use whatever discredited argument in a vain attempt at subverting the just & centuries old cause of Boer self determination.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well you can not even have an honest debate about this crucial topic without resorting to straw man arguments / lies & outright distortions. I answered all of these points earlier when you debated them last year. I guess you did not pay attention to them or are an obvious demagogue with an agenda to subvert Boer self determination.

    Once again you either are totally ignorant of the ACTUAL history or are DELIBERATELY distorting. Since you have now OPENLY claimed that the ANC version of history is "closer to the truth" than the FACTS I have present should tell everyone all they need to know about you. The Cape Dutch can not possibly be Boers as the Boers are a SPECIFIC people who were formed on the Cape frontier OUTSIDE from & AWAY from the folks who would later be called the Cape Dutch.

    The Cape Dutch have NEVER been called Boers & even your good friend Professor Hermann Giliomee ADMITTED in his skewed writings that the term Boer was ONLY ever applied to the folks of the Cape frontier. This fact alone should cause this issue to be forever settled.

    1. No. You are using an ILLEGITIMATE & INCORRECT pseudo argument because the Boers developed on the northern & eastern Cape frontier AWAY from where the Cape Dutch later developed. You are incorrectly calling the Boers "Cape Dutch" when they are not even from the Cape Dutch as they emerged long before the term Cape Dutch was even applied to the folks of the Western Cape. The term Voorterkker was not a common term of the era & was not used en mass until the Afrikaner Broederdond REWROTE history & applied that term to the trekkers. All cultural groups get their names from derogatory terms but the therm Boer was taken from Trekboer. The Trekboers were the ancestors of the Boers & they certainly were not the ancestors of the Cape Dutch - so how the HELL
    can the Cape Dutch "be Boers" when the Cape Dutch are not even descended from the same people as the Boers are!!!!! Paul Kruger referred to himself as a Boer in all his correspondence. Furthermore it was not unusual for Boers to refer to themselves as "Afrikaners" BUT they meant in in a general GEOGRAPHIC manner & NOT IN THE SENSE that they saw themselves as part of the Cape Dutch. Professor Wallace Mills [ among others ] have openly stated that the Boers DID NOT CONSIDER THEMSELVES to be part of the Cape Dutch! Read more at this link. Yet you who has NO TRAINING OR INTEREST IN THE ACTUAL HISTORY of the Boer people deign substitute your INCOMPLETE analysis with that of an expert professor.

    ReplyDelete
  27. There you go once again demagoging because Namibian Afrikaans is DIRECTLY from the Eastern Border Afrikaans of the Boers! You are hoping no one will notice that. The notion that people who speak Afrikaans are Afrikaners was the dangerous MYTHOLOGY promoted by the British & the Afrikaners! Which was designed to DESTROY the identity of the Boers! The fact that you PARROT this dangerous mythology further exposes you as having an anti-Boer agenda. Furthermore the Afrikaner Bond promotes the notion that Coloureds ARE Afrikaners & if you actually knew your history you would know that the Coloureds appropriated the term Afrikaner for themselves in the early 19th cent LONG before the Cape Dutch began to appropriate it. Then you engage in FURTHER cognitive dissonance because the Coloureds are the ORIGINATORS of the Afrikaans language & the fact that you neglect to realize this further destroys whatever credibility you ever hoped to have. If it were not for the Malays attempts at learning Dutch: Afrikaans as we know it would never have emerged! Afrikaans was not created in vacuum but rather from the interaction among the various peoples the VOC dumped at the Cape European & Asian alike. The various White & Coloured groups simply adopted their own dialects of Afrikaans.

    Do not qualify as Afrikaner? Who the hell are you to make such myopic pronouncements? You have no power to PREVENT them from claiming the designation. They called themselves Afrikaners LONG before the Cape Dutch ever did. You are totally lost in your own delusional rhetoric. You are clinging to an OUTDATED 1950s Afrikaner Nationalist definition of the term Afrikaner. You are totally out of touch with reality because Afrikaans is simply a designation for the lingua franca which developed at the Cape spoken by Coloured & White alike. Claiming that only White people speak Afrikaans is absurd as claiming that only Canadians speak North American English. Do you even realize how you have proven my previous point that you deny? The Boers speak their own DIALECT [ not language ] of Afrikaans in the same way that the Cape Coloureds speak their own dialect of Afrikaans. Also in the same way the Quebecois speak their own dialect of French.

    4. The Boers do not adhere to a single religion & Professor André Du Toit has even asserted that the Boers were not known as particularly religious prior to the second Anglo-Boer War [ Link. ] so you are once again presenting a straw man argument. The fact that the Boers were excommunicated from the Dutch Reformed Church
    over the Great Trek was the relevant point leading to the establishment of the Dopper sect. Once again the Boers do not have to have their "own" religion to be a distinct group as the Acadians share the same religion as the Quebecois but are of course a distinct group.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 5. The Cape Dutch have NEVER struggled for freedom & this is on the historical record. Theuns Cloete [ a Boer Patriot that you threatened to JAIL for the crime of advocating for the freedom of the Boer people! ] has publicly observed this as well. The PRAAG website is run by a BOER descendent named Dan Roodt. He is one of many Boers calling themselves "Afrikaners" & allowing themselves to be usurped by the Afrikaners. The membership of the AWB was composed virtually entirely of Boer descendents which I have stated to you BEFORE but I see that you still CLING to your old discredited lies aimed at the Afrikaner usurpation of the Boer Nation.

    6. This was already answered last year in the LAST debate we had in this topic. Adriana Stuijt correctly noted that Terre'Blanche was CONFUSED over his ethnic identity [ as a lot of Boers were made to be since the Broederbond rewrote their history ]. [ Link. ] Terre'Blanche also probably named his organization as such in order to woo those Afrikaners of Cape Dutch origin as well. But one will notice that the vast majority of his membership came from Boer descendents. That should tell you something & if it does not than you are clearly acting as an apologist for the subjugation of the Boer Nation despite your constant denial.

    7. The Boers are as different from the Cape Dutch Afrikaners as the Acadians are different from the Quebecois. The Boers are the folks who are descended from the Trekboers. The Trekboers were the nomadic pastorialists who established the reality of a Boer people which would NEVER HAVE COME ABOUT without them. If the Trekboers never emerged: there would be no Boer people. The Cape Dutch never developed into Boers so claiming that there is no difference is to be totally IGNORANT of the history of the region.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Now we all want to know: why are you so intent on DISPOSSESSING the identity of the Boer people by lumping into the Cape Dutch descended population who have historically worked against them? Why should the Boers be aligned with an anti-Boer population group who are aligned with the enemies of the Boer people? Why does the Afrikaner Sanlam FINANCE high ranking ANC politicians? Why does the Afrikaner Bond PROP up the ANC & why are they actively part of it? Why must the Boer people SUBMIT to being subjugated by a population group which is more interested in maintaining the status quo?

    The difference between Boer & Afrikaner has been noted by various personalities. The following notable folks ALL recognize the distinction between Afrikaner & Boer: Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio & Boer Separatist / Adriana Stuijt: a Dutch born former South African journalist / the late Robert van Tonder of the Boerestaat Party & founder of Randburg / William McWhirter of Time Magazine / Yolandi Groenwald of the Mail & Guardian / Noel Mostert former Canadian journalist.

    8. This is a blatant lie of the worst order. None other than Theuns Cloete publicly noted that the Boers WERE NOT ALLOWED to marry the Cape Dutch: so how the hell could they have "intermarried" with them? Now while some did skirt the prohibition - it is irrelevant to the continued existence of the Boer people because the Boers have not been "absorbed" into the Afrikaners as you ludicrously tried to claim prior. The term Boer was only made into a "derogatory" term for the EXPRESS purpose to get the Boers to shun their own identity. Now look here: you are an ADMITTED former "liberal" [ & I am not so sure on the former part ] & the notion that the term Boer is "derogatory" is a big talking point among them. They did this because they knew that most Boers were conservative & could not have effectively conditioned them into thinking of themselves as Afrikaners without first turning the Boer designation into a derogatory term. The term Afrikaner is equally derogatory to many Boers as well.

    9. Wrong. All those songs & poetry were part of an Afrikaner drive to create a "single culture" via dispossessing the Boers in the first place. So once again you are engaging in a straw man argument. I could legitimately say to you: do not come here with "same culture" nonsense. The fact that the Afrikaners dispossessed & hijacked the Boers does not legitimize the erroneous assertion of a "single" culture. The Cape Dutch increasingly want NOTHING to do with Boer history at any rate so you are fighting a LOOSING battle & when the Cape Dutch have finally divorced themselves from the Boers I wonder what delusional apologetic nonsense you will come up with.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 10. Most of the Germans that arrived in the 1700s settled DIRECTLY in the north eastern Cape where the Boers developed. Once again you do not follow that I ACTUALLY say as I have long noted that few arrivals who settled the Cape are from the Dutch. That includes the so called Cape Dutch.

    11. The Boers developed a dialect which sprang from the lingua franca developed at the Cape. Your erroneous assertion that it "must" have more German in it is once again a ridiculous straw man argument. The French Huguenots were similarly absorbed leaving very little trace of French in Afrikaans. But for some reason you constantly like to infer that the there "must" be some German in the Boer's dialect.

    12. This is another ridiculous straw man argument. Just as the Scots who were absorbed into the Quebecois did not alter the Catholic religion of the Quebecois.

    13. I have never disputed that point & if you ever truly bothered to really read what I write you would have known that I have LONG since noted that French & other roots of the Boers. The Germans were ABSORBED into the Boers: they did not DISPLACE them as you are disingenuously attempting to infer. Though it turns out that the VOC brought out more Germans to the Cape than Dutch.

    14. No but you missed the point. The point was not about Generals. Malan was ALSO not a Boer as he was from the Cape Dutch population.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 15. No it is NOT a historical fact. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Hertzog & Smuts to have ever been Boers!!!!! This is the SALIENT point you NEVER confront. If a Welshman fights in the Scottish army: he can never be called a "Scottish General". The term Boer is not a civil term. Fighting with the Boers does not make one a Boer. Once must be BORN into the Boer people to be a Boer. Verwoerd was one of the most "Afrikaner" Afrikaners in the history of the Afrikaners! Despite not being born in Africa. Verwoerd himself even NOTED that he was "an extreme Afrikaner"! He ADMITTED himself that he was an Afrikaner & an EXTREME Afrikaner at that.

    16. P W Botha is EXACTLY like the case of Dan Roodt. IE: a Boer who was conditioned to view himself as an Afrikaner. It is all very well to use his Boer ethnicity to imply that "it was all the Boers' fault" while PURPOSELY neglecting the Boer attempts at regaining their stolen republics as occurred with Robert van Tonder since 1961 & with Eugene Terre'Blanche since 1984 & with Fritz Meyer as well. Traitors of SA? Why the hell should there be any loyalty to a macro State which was IMPOSED & created on the backs of 24 000 dead Boer children? Verweord & Botha were both traitors to the Boer people! Furthermore: as misguided as Botha's consociationalist approach was: it was entirely as symptom of the macro State created by Britain which lumped everyone under a single administration for the first time ever.

    17. Just another straw man argument as I never denied that F W de Klerk was part Boer descent. You like to infer that I do not recognize the Boer descendent role in the selling out of right of the Boer people to their right to self determination. You can add Roelf Meyer & Pik Botha to this list as well. The point I make [ which you carefully sidestep ] is the fact that the decisions were made by the Cape Dutch descended Afrikaner leadership & the Broederbond in particular. But for obvious anti-Boer propagandistic reasons like to ignore this & infer that the smaller Boer people had the same decision making power as the larger Cape Dutch population.

    18. The only thing that matters is how the Boers view themselves & they sure as hell do not see themselves as being part of the Cape Dutch as Professor Wallace Mills rightly noted.

    19. How rich to accuse myself of crude conduct when YOUR crude & downright scatological conduct is notorious. No. The Boers are not Afrikaners. This has been clarified ad nauseum by folks more knowledgeable them myself such as Professor Wallace Mills / journalist Adriana Stuijt / Theuns Cloete etc. You are promoting a total inappropriate comparison. The Boers NEVER lost their identity in the same manner as their European ancestors did when the Boers & Cape Dutch were being formed. The Afrikaners simply hijacked the Boers but they NEVER extinguished the Boer people! This is an important point that you sidestep from. With the Boer identity you Afrikaners would have had NO identity to base yours on as you required to appropriate the Boers history in order to justify colonizing their lands & preventing them from reclaiming their land.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 22. Well if it walks like a duck... The truths hurts doesn't it. Ironic that you use that line in your title. You have a clear anti-Boer agenda because you deliberately lump the actual Boer people in with the Cape Dutch ad nauseum & get irate whenever anyone calls you on it. If Boers & Afrikaners are so "one & the same thing" then why do the Afrikaners [ particularly the Afrikaner leadership ] work so hard AGAINST the Boer people? Why do the Cape Dutch Afrikaners increasingly want NOTHING to do with Boer history? I find it most telling that you accuse me of "pseudo historical junk" when everything I noted is ON THE HISTORICAL record & noted by eminent professors. You shamelessly like to act as though all of the information I presented is pulled out of thin air when I have provided numerous links within the articles I have written on the topic.

    23. The fact of the matter is that the only one with an agenda here is you because you ROUTINELY propagandize against the Boer people.

    24. The term Afrikaner was promoted by the British in order to STOP the Boers from reclaiming their Boer Republics. The fact that you promote this term that was promoted by the enemy says it all. You know FULL well that so long as the Boers are conditioned to view themselves as Afrikaners that they will NEVER acquire any freedom because you also know that the Afrikaner leadership is controlled.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 25. What a desperate joke. This has totally confirmed to me who you really are as I have LONG suspected it. I advocate for things that the ANC agents have ATTACKED me on. The only person who is an ANC agent here is clearly you because it was YOU who ran that exposed "false flag" blog that was aimed at making White South Africans look like racial extremists. I have spent years of my life trying to get Westerners to see that White South Africans are not the one dimensional media stereotype that you clearly relish in promoting. BUT YOU ON THE OTHER HAND GO OUT OF YOUR WAY to portray White people as imbalanced extremists? Why is that Mike? [ if that is you real name. ] Why do you like to send the message to the rest of the world of the most EXTREME example? I have long since been called a Right Wing nut for simply stating that facts. Yet all I see from you is someone intentionally STIRRING the pot hoping to create a radial image of White people so that the State can be "justified" in "eliminating" them. Isn't that right Mike? Is that not what ALL THIS INVECTIVE BULLSHIT is all about. Getting a desired result so that when you have taken your 30 pieces of silver you will vanish while the State eliminates the rest of us over the invective that YOU posted.

    26. Once again. I am not against Afrikaners looking for freedom. All I ever pointed out was that the Boers are not EVER going to find the freedom that they seek if they continue to be subjugated by the Afrikaners. The Afrikaner leadership is ALIGNED with the ANC & is on board with the dispensation. You can try & duck & hide from this all you want but those are the facts. What a joke for you to try to push this line of reasoning when you are the MAIN author of a blog which was totally AIMED at trying to make White South Africans look like mad nut jobs! You sir take the cake as usual. Your hatred against Theuns Cloete is VERY telling because back when you were still a "liberal" he was busy trying to free his people. The fact the he is STILL trying to free his people gives ANC agents like you a real headache which you betray in your disdain for him.

    27. Another straw man argument. There is no Afrikaner "community" to "divide" because it simply does not exist. Nor has it ever. It was only ever a mythology promoted by the British in order to DESTROY the identity if the Boer people to subjugate them within a macro State structure / dispensation. The entire notion of an Afrikaner was aimed at diving the Boers because it led to the development of those who identified themselves as Afrikaners working to take control of a macro state & patriotic Boers who tried to restore their republics but were prevented by the Afrikaner Nationalists & folks like you. I am sure it was no accident that you promoted the HNP on that other blog knowing full well that it is a trap to prevent the Boers from obtaining self determination.

    28. Another total straw man argument. Furthermore the British created the macro State & recruited the notion of an Afrikaner to administer it as a "surrogate colonial regime". This is all on the historical record.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 29. No. Another lie. Those are the historically legitimate terms with which the two main White Afrikaans speaking populations were always called. I do not believe in division as I have called for everyone to stand with the Boer people. The fact that you do not is rather telling. The Cape Dutch no longer call themselves as such by they still exist as a distinct people. The notion of an Afrikaner was simply a political based myth aimed at cobbling together an UNSTABLE language based coalition the purposes of wresting the macro State from the English speakers period. The term Afrikaner serves no useful or valid purpose today as it is quickly being reclaimed by the Coloured originators of the term. While you cling to an OUTDATED / anachronistic use of the term which went out of style by the late 1970s. The Vikings were not an ethnic group as they were a series of Scandinavian groups who became raiders. I corrected you on this BEFORE but yet you persist in your ignorance as you do with this whole topic.

    30. That fact has got nothing to do with "sympathy" [ from whom incidentally as I seem to recall you saying quite recently & I quote: "no one gave a fuck about the Boers". ] but simply about noting that the Boers are OUTNUMBERED by the Afrikaners of Cape Dutch origin hence will not be able to find any self determination so long as they are politically tethered to them. This is a cold hard fact that you try to obscure but it at the crux of why Boer self determination is routinely subverted.

    31. Another straw man argument as I have routinely noted the numerous Boer descendents who have worked against Boer self determination - but often as Afrikaners so the Afrikaner mentality does bear a lot of blame though. The notion of an Afrikaner was created to get Afrikaans speakers to work WITHIN an illegitimate macro State thereby SUPPLANTING the Boer tradition of working to regain their own republics.

    33. Distortion. I have never "glorified" the Boers. Pointing out how they are subjugated & are routinely subverted is not about "glorifying" them but about doing justice to & being true to their centuries long struggle for self determination. Something that you are oddly against [ not so oddly now ] except when they do so under Afrikaner tutelage which of course is controlled.

    35. Another straw man argument. Furthermore those Boer descendents who "betrayed" the Boers in fact did so as openly identified Afrikaners working for an open Afrikaner agenda. That too is on the record.

    36. This from someone who is widely known as divisive & is working to divide the Boer people by trying to convince them that that should align with the Afrikaner agenda. The Boers are generally standing together on the notion of Boer self determination. But your futile attempts at convincing them that they are just a bunch of "Afrikaners" only serves to divide the Boers & to DILUTE their inherent strength. The Afrikaners know what they want: a united macro state wherein they strive to exercise political rights as a "minority" group. The Boers know what they want: restored republics & or self determination as a nation.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Responding here was probably the worst thing you could have ever done because prior I was not certain whether you were an intelligence agent posing as an extremist blogger but now it is all but certain. I also was not entirely sure whether you were that agent provocateur known as Afrikaner but now that is certain too as you used the EXACT same points & terms as he. This is disappointing because I held out hope that you were at least in some misguided way still on the side of Boer & Afrikaans freedom but the fact that you DELIBERATELY misrepresented & distorted my positions ad nauseum despite having been repeatedly corrected only cements this realization.

    I also find it telling that you say Theuns Cloete is "my buddy" when in fact he has appeared on the Right Perspective 3 times & once on the Newsguy's radio program & all I ever did was reference his valid points he made on those programs. I also realize more than ever now that you were also RWR & Blueskyes as well & that you will use whatever discredited underhanded argument in a vain attempt at subverting the just & centuries old cause of Boer self determination.

    ReplyDelete
  36. OK Ron. Here goes.

    I see you have used the term “Strawman Argument” about 30 times in your series of posts…amongst the following ad Hominems…
    Boer dispossessing
    Listen you liar
    the liar that you are
    Hey distorting dimwit
    exposing yourself as having a clear anti-Boer agenda
    demagoging
    PARROT this dangerous mythology
    Who the hell are you to make such myopic pronouncements?
    your own delusional rhetoric
    an apologist for the subjugation of the Boer Nation
    YOUR crude & downright scatological conduct is notorious
    you ROUTINELY propagandize against the Boer people.

    The rest of your ad hominem, pseudo history, Concpiracy theorist crap was ignored. Next time kindly restrict your idiotic comments to a single comment of max of 200 words or I will delete it. I can only stomach so much junk in one session. You wrote 22 comments under two different names…it was so bad that “Blogger” automatically dumped the lot into the spam folder. Unfortunately I had a look before deleting the lot. I am not going to allow you to hi-jack this thread. When you comment stick to the topic.

    Nevertheless… here is the answer…

    ReplyDelete
  37. 1. Ron says: Well you can not (Sic) even have an honest debate about this crucial topic without resorting to straw man argument / lies & outright distortions.
    Mike: Do not flatter yourself. I do not debate idiots, pseudo historians and fanatics like you. Especially not when they start the argument with ad-hominems such as telling me that what I say is “straw man arguments / lies & outright distortions.” In my opinion Ron, You can GFY.
    2. Ron says: “you did not pay attention to them or are a demagogue with an agenda to subvert Boer self determination.”
    Mike: Another ad Hominem. Like I said. It is clear that everyone who do not swallow your pseudo junk is a Demagogue, with an agenda, that spread lies, distortions and…yes you guessed it, strawman arguments. Tell me Ron…How do you expect me or anyone to take you seriously? GFY.
    3. Ron Says: “you are totally ignorant” “are deliberately distorting”…
    Mike: More ad Hominems…You are doing fine in your “Debate”…again GFY.
    4. Ron says: “ACTUAL history…FACTS”…
    Mike: JA,JA,JA…it is clear that your Caps lock button got stuck or you are convinced that your crap is the ONLY TRUTH, blah, blah, blah…GFY.
    5. Ron says: “The Cape Dutch can not (sic) possibly be Boers as the Boers are a SPECIFIC people who were formed on the Cape frontier OUTSIDE from & AWAY from the folks who would later be called the Cape Dutch.
    Mike: They were “Formed”? How? By whom? All Trekboers and therefore Boers originated from the CAPE. They spoke Dutch/Afrikaans and were therefore,…you guessed it CAPE DUTCH…getit? According to your illogical clap trap, the fact that the Cape Dutch packed up and started moving made them now a distinct people, called “TREKBOERS”…once the Trekboers settled the areas of Natal, Freestate and Transvaal. They became a distinct group again called BOERS…with a completely “different identity”. In the Five-ten years that the Great trek lasted, these people somehow became total aliens to their Cape Dutch ancestors who lived for 200 years in the Cape. Ag please Ron…GFY.
    6. Ron Says: “Cape Dutch have NEVER been called Boers”
    Mike: Nobody said that. I said the Boers were all former Cape Dutch.
    7. Ron says: “Professor Hermann Giliomee ADMITTED in his skewed writings…”
    Mike: Now you direct your ad hominems against one of the most respected historians of South Africa. You have just lost all your academic credibility you dunce.
    8. Ron says:” The Boers are not even from the Cape Dutch as they emerged long before the term Cape Dutch was even applied to the folks of the Western Cape.”
    Mike: Gee Wiz, Ron…? Hey? What a load of anachronistic crap is that? The Dutch settled the Cape in 1652 and since then were called, Cape Dutch? What else do you call Dutch settlers at the Cape? Besides, it was not called the “Western Cape” for many centuries later…at the time it was called the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Town and the Cape Colony, but never the “Western Cape”…See the bollocks you spew and you call this a debate?
    9. Ron says: “…until the Afrikaner Broederdond REWROTE history…”
    Mike: So now the Afrikaner Broederbond is a history organization. I always thought they were a Think-tank made up of Afrikaner intellectuals to further the cause of Afrikaner people…but what do I know. Please tell us, Ron, who were these Afrikanerbonders who rewrote history, and in your fucked up view distorted history? Please point me to these history books or sources along with the PROOF that they were written by the Afrikaner bond. And I mean proof that will stand up in a court of law. Unless you can do that, YOU RON, are the distorter, liar and spreader of disinformation. Come fuckwit…where is your proof? Again you suck your FACTS, (note the capitals), out of your arse.
    10. Ron says: “you who has NO TRAINING OR INTEREST IN THE ACTUAL HISTORY….”
    Mike: Define “training in history”, “Interest” and “Actual History”…or don’t bother. You Ron, is the only Real historian of the Boers, with the ACTUAL (note the capitals) HISTORY…We are not worthy, we are not worthy.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 11. Ron says: “IT IS IRRELEVANT the that (sic) Cape Dutch & Boers "speak the same language"!

    Mike: How is that Ron? First you used the dialects as proof that these groups were somehow different, now language is irrelevant?

    12. Ron says: The Quebecois & Acdians (sic) ALSO speak the same language BUT they are two DISTINCT groups with their won (sic) histories just like the Cape Dutch & the Boers.

    Mike: What is an Acdian? Surely you mean Acadian, Ron. It seems that the more you foam around the mouth the more you misspell. Your argument is irrelevant. It is like saying the British of Rhodesia and the British of Kenya had different histories. Hell even Afrikaners from the Freestate and Afrikaners from the Transvaal have different histories. The people from Welkom and the people from Bethlehem (both in the Freestate) also have different histories. The Afrikaners from Johannesburg has a different history from the Pretorians…See how petty your childish arguments are? BTW the Griquas and the Cape Malay were originally two different races with two different languages, cultures religions etc. so your argument is irrelevant and illogical. It cannot be compared to the two Francophone groups you quote.

    13. Ron Says: “I do not see your Cape Dutch folks speaking Eastern Border Afrikaans so please dispense with this Boer dispossessing claptrap.”

    Mike: So what language do the Afrikaners speak who live in the Eastern Cape area TODAY? Are they Called Cape Dutch or Boers? Seeing that they speak Eastern Border Afrikaans and might or might not have any affiliation to any of the two Boer republics? According to your logic and criteria for what a Boer is, it means that all Afrikaners who live between Port Elizabeth and East London are automatically Boers. Jeez, your arguments become weaker and weaker and more confusing as you go along. BTW…what exactly are the differences between the two dialects? I mean EXACTLY…so far you have used one example, one word, the one for “yesterday” namely “voorgister” en “eergister”. Is that it Ron. Can you not do better? There are more differences in usage of words between my own family members…are we now all distinct groups or do we all have distinct dialects? What an intellectual and historical cripple you are, Ron.

    14. Ron says: “There was once no dictionary or "Bible" [ remember that odd one? ] in Afrikaans either for centuries. So by your reasoning then the Boers / Afrikaners / Griquas etc "did not exist" then? There is no Bible in Acadian French either. But do the Acadians not exist then?”

    Mike: Good point. There is however a Bible in Plattdeutsch, Hochdeutsch and Bayerisch(Bavarian), not just dialects of German but almost completely different languages…yet the people are all Germans. Today there is no Bible in Boeraans only in Afrikaans. There is no dictionary in Boeraans only in Afrikaans. Before the Afrikaans Bible the Boers used the Dutch Bible. Did that make them Dutch? Your argument once was that the Boers had a different religion namely the Dutch Hervormde Kerk (Doppers) And the Afrikaners had the Dutch Reform Church. As I pointed out they are both Calvinistic and the only difference is that the one sings Psalms and Hymns and the other only Psalms. If your Easteern border Afrikaans is so “Distinct” then why does the Boers not use a “Distinct” Bible written in Boeraans. Your so called Boer Church the Hervormde Kerk uses the Afrikaans Bible.

    15. Ron Says: “Furthermore the Afrikaner Bond promotes the notion that Coloureds ARE Afrikaners” (note the capitals)

    Mike: “I would like to see your proof of that. As far as I am aware the AB do allow coloured and black members if Afrikaans is their mother tongue. The only criteria is that they should be Christian, Afrikaans speaking and support the ideals of the Afrikaners. The AB do not say that such coloureds are automatically Afrikaaners. Currently they are toying with other words such as “Afrikaanses”. Again you seem to suck your FACTS out of your arse.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 16. Ron Says: “the Coloureds appropriated the term Afrikaner for themselves in the early 19th cent LONG before the Cape Dutch began to appropriate it”…and…” They called themselves Afrikaners LONG before the Cape Dutch ever did.”

    Mike: Please cite your source. The first person recorded to have identified himself as an Afrikaner was Hendrik Biebouw, who, in March 1707, stated, Ik ben een Afrikander (I am an African), about 127 years before the Great Trek. Was he coloured, Ron? No he was White and Dutch with both parents Dutch. This was already in the early 18th century. Again you pull your FACTS (note the capitals) out of your arse. How you can call yourself a historian is beyond belief.

    17. Ron Says: “the Coloureds are the ORIGINATORS of the Afrikaans language & the fact that you neglect to realize this further destroys whatever credibility you ever hoped to have. If it were not for the Malays attempts at learning Dutch: Afrikaans as we know it would never have emerged!”

    Mike says: Please cite your sources and deliver proof. Not theories. Proof! According to you The coloureds started this “Kitchen Dutch”…as it is also called. These clever coloureds developed a language that is today a Juristic and Scientific language in which many doctorate thesis are written…Yeah right. More accurate is that the language started out of Europeans from various backgrounds, French, Germans Flemish Frisians, etc trying to communicate with each other. The Colouerd version of Afrikaans developed separately and their variant which is almost a totally different language today, can be heard in the coloured areas…It is very far from Afrikaans. Most coloureds today cannot speak Suiwer Afrikaans and send their kids to English schools. The tiny amount of Koi-Koi and Malay words in Afrikaans are proof to this and are overshadowed by the French, Frisian and German influence on the language.

    18. Ron says: “The Boers speak their own DIALECT”

    Mike: Ah yes…it is starting to become clear. The Afrikaners (traitors) speak a basterdised coloured Language and also race mixed and the Angelic Boers stayed pure and speak Boeraans (also known as Eastern Cape Afrikaans). Hehehe ;-)

    19. Ron says: “Professor André Du Toit has even asserted that the Boers were not known as particularly religious prior to the second Anglo-Boer War”.

    Mike: Well at least for this FACT (note the capitals) you provided a source. However the one Boer President himself, Paul Kruger, is on record to have said that he only read one book in his life and it was the Bible. He did not need any other he said. He also claimed to know most of it by heart. He was also a founder member of the Dutch Reform Church…Your so called Afrikaner Church,( Maritin Meredith “Diamonds, Gold and War. (New York:PublicAffairs),76.)…No Ron…it is well known that the Boers were extremely religious, bordering on the fanatic.

    20. Ron Says: “Once again the Boers do not have to have their "own" religion to be a distinct group”.

    Mike: Backpedalling I see…Nevertheless, We now have seen that language as well as religion is irrelevant to be a distinct group…your own argument about the Quebecois and Acadians state this as you admit both groups share the same language and the same religion yet they are distinct groups. So is it with the Afrikaners and the Boers. So what is it that distinguishes the Boers from the Afrikaners Ron?

    ReplyDelete
  40. 21. Ron Says: “The Cape Dutch have NEVER struggled for freedom & this is on the historical record.”

    Mike: What about the Cape Rebels during the Boer War that fought on the side of the Boers? What about your so called Cape Dutch who became Boer Generals, like Smuts and Botha? Did they not strive for Boer Freedom? Further…the assumption is made that ALL Boers strove for Boer Freedom and no Cape Dutch/ Afrikaner ever did. Would you include there the almost 30,000 Boer traitors and Hensoppers? Did they also strive for Boer freedom. So what will you call PRAAG and other Afrikaners such as the great grandson of Paul Kruger going by the same name who today strive for freedom? Do you really call idiots like Piet Rudolph and his friend Willem Boshoff who hit Paul Kruger in the face “Boers”? I mean they also strive for freedom and the restoration of the Boer epublics.

    22. Ron Says:”Theuns Cloete [ a Boer Patriot that you threatened to JAIL for the crime of advocating for the freedom of the Boer people! ]”

    Mike: Theuns Cloete is jobless and illegally solicited donations from people to be paid into his personal ABSA bank account in order to help the Boer people. He did not have a registered charity number or Section 21 business registration number. Neither did he pay any tax on his collections. I did not threaten him. Further, if ABSA bank was started by the Afrikaner Broederbond and You and Theuns Cloete hate the Afrikaner Broederbond and Afrikaners, why does he bank with them and thereby support them?

    23. Ron Says:”The PRAAG website is run by a BOER descendent named Dan Roodt. He is one of many Boers calling themselves "Afrikaners" & allowing themselves to be usurped by the Afrikaners”.

    Mike: So Dr. Dan Roodt a noted Afrikaner intellectual, a Boer descendant who calls himself an Afrikaner and is an Afrikaner of great prestige would let himself be usurped…?

    24. Ron Says: Adriana Stuijt correctly noted that Terre'Blanche was CONFUSED over his ethnic identity. But one will notice that the vast majority of his membership came from Boer descendents.”

    Mike: Another Boer Leader who was confused in your eyes, because he named his organization the Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB). OK Ron it is clear…All these Boer leaders and intellectuals who calls themselves Afrikaners are all brainwashed and confused…even usurped. YOU RON is the only one who knows the truth. BTW…when last did you pick up a copy of Groep sonder Grense by Prof Johann Heese? It is a record off all the Afrikaner surnames and ancestors that married coloureds in the CAPE…Terreblanche’s name is in there…And the vast majority of his organization were police and NIA informants including Terreblanche himself.

    25. Ron Says: Now we all want to know: why are you so intent on DISPOSSESSING the identity of the Boer people…”

    Mike: First of all, who is “We all”? How can I “dispossess” the identity of the Boer People? I acknowledge that they did exist, but that they were absorbed into the greater group of Afrikaans speaking white South Africans and Namibians. Today in 2011 the words Boer and Afrikaner is synonomous.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 26. Ron Says: “The difference between Boer & Afrikaner has been noted by various personalities. The following notable folks ALL recognize the distinction between Afrikaner & Boer: Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio & Boer Separatist / Adriana Stuijt: a Dutch born former South African journalist”

    Mike: So please state these differences! Please I beg you, So far we have seen that language and religion is irrelevant. What else is there?

    27. Ron Says: “the Boers WERE NOT ALLOWED to marry the Cape Dutch: so how the hell could they have "intermarried" with them? And … the Boers have not been "absorbed" into the Afrikaners…”

    Mike: Please provide proof of this legislation. I have not seen this yet. In the Union of South Africa 1910 -1961 and even afterwards until the present day (for the past 100 years) the Boers and other Afrikaners traveled and migrated all over South Africa and intermarried and inter-settled all over the country. Today there is only one nation named the Afrikaners. Please name these Boers who were NOT (note the capitals) absorbed into the Afrikaners. If this is such an obvious fact then these people should all know who they are. Start a website or make a list where these people can put their names up. I am not worried about their identities. I simply want to know how many there are that can today claim pure Boer heritage on both mother and father side. Please tell us Ron.

    28. Ron Says:” The Cape Dutch increasingly want NOTHING to do with Boer history at any rate so you are fighting a LOOSING battle & when the Cape Dutch have finally divorced themselves from the Boers I wonder what delusional apologetic nonsense you will come up with.”

    Mike: In fact the evidence provide by you prove the opposite. You and your fanatical group wants to separate yourselves from the Afrikaners. My view is one of inclusivity yours is one of “fascist exclusivity”.

    29. Ron Says: “The Germans were ABSORBED into the Boers: they did not DISPLACE them”
    Mike: Now you are starting to see the light. The Boers were absorbed into the Afrikaners, they did not displace them.

    30. Ron Says: “Once must be BORN into the Boer people to be a Boer.”

    Mike: Please define closer. Does that mean both parents Boer, Grandparents etc…How much percentage Afrikaner is allowed? Further please provide a list of names or researched list of numbers of how many Boers there are today that can claim that status.

    31. Ron Says: “P W Botha is EXACTLY like the case of Dan Roodt. IE: a Boer who was conditioned to view himself as an Afrikaner.”

    Mike: Ja, Ja, it is clear…in your view, all Boers who call themselves Afrikaners are all brainwashed idiots.

    32. Ron says:…about the treason of Boer descendants De Klerk, PW Botha, Roelf Meyer, etc…” the decisions were made by the Cape Dutch descended Afrikaner leadership & the Broederbond in particular.

    Mike: Please read my Pandora series. I would like to see your list of this leadership. It sounds like you are again pulling your theories and FACTS (note the capitals) out of your arse.

    33. Ron Says: “The only thing that matters is how the Boers view themselves & they sure as hell do not see themselves as being part of the Cape Dutch”

    Mike: So you come onto the internet and spew all your lies and disinformation about the differences in Language and Religion and what not….and when caught out by someone who do not swallow your crap and who is not in your std. 7 history class and challenges you to provide the proof of these differences then you throw your hands up in the air and says it only matters how the Boers view themselves? Hey? What happened to all your bullshit, pseudo history theories, sources and FACTS (note the capitals) now…Ron?

    ReplyDelete
  42. 34. Ron Says: “No. The Boers are not Afrikaners. This has been clarified ad nauseum by folks more knowledgeable them myself such as Professor Wallace Mills / journalist Adriana Stuijt / Theuns Cloete etc.”

    Mike: Oh my Goodness. It is going to rain tomorrow. Ron just admitted someone could be more knowledgeable than him…By mentioning Prof. Mills I could still grasp what you tried to say, but when you mentioned Adriana and Cloete as people more knowledgeable than yourself, I think you threw your credibility out the window.

    35. Ron says: The Afrikaners simply hijacked the Boers but they NEVER extinguished the Boer people! This is an important point that you sidestep from.“

    Mike: No I don’t. Please provide proof of this Highjacking or I will have to discard your FACT (note the capitals) as bollocks.

    36. Ron says: ” everything I noted is ON THE HISTORICAL record & noted by eminent professors. You shamelessly like to act as though all of the information I presented is pulled out of thin air when I have provided numerous links within the articles I have written on the topic.”

    Mike: You cited one credible source and link…Prof Mills. Please supply the rest.

    37. Ron says: “YOU who ran that exposed "false flag" blog that was aimed at making White South Africans look like racial extremists.”

    Mike: I suppose you mean South Africa Sucks? I think you have it the wrong way around. SA Sucks tried amongst other things to point out that Black South Africans were racial extremists.

    38. Ron Says: “The Afrikaner leadership is ALIGNED with the ANC & is on board with the dispensation. You can try & duck & hide from this all you want but those are the facts.”
    Mike: No I am not trying to duck and hide. I fully agree with you that there are indeed some Afrikaner “Leaders” aligned with the ANC. Aare they still then Afrikaner leaders? I do not think so. On the other hand there are other Afrikaner leaders who are NOT aligning themselves with the ANC . Them I support. But your Boer mates go and punch them in the face and make Boers look like idiots in the eyes of the world. Now please tell me who are the REAL agent provocateurs in this game trying to make the Boers look like “mad nut jobs”. Start there with your search?

    ReplyDelete
  43. 39. Ron Says: “I have called for everyone to stand with the Boer people. The fact that you do not is rather telling.“

    Mike: That is right. You want all Afrikaners to lose their identity and view themselves as “Boers” so that your pathetic little band of fanatics can strengthen your numbers with Afrikaner cannon fodder. Where did I see this film before? Ah yes, it must have been some documentaries on Socialist fascism in Germany and Italy during the Second World War..

    40. Ron Says: “The Vikings were not an ethnic group as they were series of Scandinavian groups who became raiders.”

    Mike: By the same pathetic logic.”The Afrikaners (Boers) were not an ethnic group as they were of European groups who became Trekkers”.

    41. Ron Says: “I seem to recall you saying quite recently & I quote: "no one gave a fuck about the Boers".”

    Mike: Please reference my quotes so people can read it in it’s entire context.

    42. Ron says. “The notion of an Afrikaner was created to get Afrikaans speakers to work WITHIN an illegitimate macro State thereby SUPPLANTING the Boer tradition of working to regain their own republics.”

    Mike: Unsubstantiated, conspiracy theory crap with no proof, as usual.

    43. Ron Says: “their centuries long struggle for self determination. Something that you are oddly against…“

    Mike: No Ron. I am even for the self determination of the coloureds and the Tswanas. I am a Nationalist, remember? What I am against is your devising bullshit and lunatic rhetoric, false logic, false and distorted FACTS (note the capitals) and trying to split up the Afrikaners. I understand why you want to do it and I see through your agenda. I will confront you and take you on wherever I find you and your lies. You should be honoured that I allowed you so much scope on this platform. Only because I believe in Freedom of speech.

    44. Ron Says: “those Boer descendents who "betrayed" the Boers in fact did so as openly identified Afrikaners working for an open Afrikaner agenda.”

    Mike: By now it is clear how your mind works, Ron…Boers are Boers until they become traitors, then they become Afrikaners.

    45. Ron says: “I was not certain whether you were an intelligence agent posing as an extremist blogger but now it is all but certain.”

    Mike Smith: Hehehehe, childish conspiracy crap and you expect people to take you seriosly? Please provide your proof or otherwise I will have to view your ranting as libelous, crap from an infantile mind.

    ReplyDelete
  44. First off let's clear up the deliberate misconception you have with who the Trekboers were. The Trekboers were the nomadic pastoralists who trekked AWAY from the western Cape region during the late 1600s & throughout the 1700s LONG before the Great Trek. The Trekboers were the ancestors of the Boer people who were formed on the northeastern Cape frontier. The Boers were separated from & distinct from the Cape Dutch for over 150 years BEFORE the Great Trek. So your disingenuous insinuation that the Trekboers existed during the time if the Great Trek is wrong. The Boers lived among themselves within the frontier regions of the Cape. Not among the Cape Dutch of the western Cape region.

    Quote: [ These early Dutch farmers were joined by other Europeans and their populations grew. The Dutch East India Company imported slaves from Angola, Mozambique, Madagascar and other parts of the Dutch Empire to work on large plantations close to Cape Town. The seminomadic Dutch farmers expanded their settlement further from the Cape and came into conflict over land with local African populations. Their contact with the local Dutch government became more and more tenuous and most of them lived hard rural lives, moving farmsteads frequently, and quite independent of government and education. By 1745 they were known as Trekboers, which means "wandering farmers," a term which was later shortened to Boers. They were unaware of the changing politics in Europe. ] Link.

    This Link. Notes when the Trekboers began migrating inland & out of the western Cape region.

    The following is from Afrikaans author Brian M. Du Toit from The Boers in East Africa: Ethnicity and Identity on page 1.

    [ The Boers had a tradition of trekking. Boer society was born on the frontiers of white settlement and on the outskirts of civilization. As members of a frontier society they always had a hinterland, open spaces to conquer, territory to occupy. Their ancestors had moved away from the limiting confines of Cape society to settle the eastern frontier. In time this location became too restricted, and individuals and families moved north across the Orange River. ]

    The Boers are documented to have emerged on the Cape frontier away from the Cape Dutch 150 years before the Great Trek.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Therefore it is that heritage which the Boer people have & are from. Your assertion of a non existent monolithic Afrikaner group only serves to lump the Boers into a people they left behind 300 years ago. The Boers have the same inherent right to self determination that the Dutch have outside of the German population group.

    I wrote two sets of comments as I thought it did not go through so later used the blogger account.

    I would write less if I could but you make a lot of erroneous points.

    1. This coming from a pseudo historian like you who deliberately asserted that Trekboers existed during the time of the Great Trek when in fact they existed during the late 1600s & throughout the 1700s. There was a class of Trekboers that existed well into the 20th cent.

    2. Your behaviour betrays the veracity of my assessment of you.

    3. The fact of the matter is that you ARE indeed totally ignorant as you have just been caught erroneously asserting that the Trekboers existed during the era of the Great trek when in fact they existed 150 years BEFORE the Great Trek. That is the crux of why the Boers are a distinct group from the Cape Dutch. Just as the Dutch developed into a distinct group from the German people by developing away from the Germans.

    4. I have spent decades now of my life informing myself about this topic based on the facts as ascertained & noted by experts in the field from authors to professors.

    5. The Boers were formed on the Cape frontier from the impoverished nomadic pastoralists often called Trekboers away from the Cape Dutch. Some of the various European [ & some Asian as noted by Prof J A Hesse. ] arrivals settled there & amalgamated into a distinct group similarly as the Cape Dutch did within the western Cape region. The Boers originated out of the folks who developed within the northeastern Cape frontier region circa late 1600s to 1735. The Cape Dutch originated from the larger folks who coalesced into a distinct group within the western Cape region. This is the roots of the anti-colonial orientation of the Boers as their ancestors had already developed a healthy disregard for authority when they began trekking inland which was further sharpened as they began to live independently from the VOC & became self sufficient. The pro Colonial Cape Dutch did not share this same frontier conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The Afrikaans Language Museum notes that the Boers spoke a dialect historians classify as Eastern Border Afrikaans. The museum further notes that the Cape Dutch spoke a variant of West Cape Afrikaans. Various dialects of the language was spoken by other Coloured related & Khoisan groups but was not formally called Afrikaans until 1875 when some Cape Dutch intellectuals from Paarl founded an Afrikaans language movement at a time when the Boers were long since independent within their internationally recognized Boer Republics & only ever referred to their dialect as "die taal" or Boeretaal.

    No. The Cape Dutch NEVER packed up & started moving. This is why you are rightly called a distorting demagogue. It is not an ad hominem attack but simply the reality of your conduct. Stop demagoging & distorting & you will no longer be called such. The Cape Dutch were not the ones who started moving - even during the Great Trek. It was the Boer people who started moving. The Boers became a distinct people during the early part of the 1700s on the northeastern Cape frontier. Long before moving into the Natal / the Orange Free State & the Transvaal. The Boer people had existed for 150 years BEFORE the Great Trek. The Boers became distinct LONG before the Great Trek.

    Quote from History of the Afrikaans language in South Africa. [ From this, three main dialects emerged, Cape Afrikaans, Orange River Afrikaans and Eastern Border Afrikaans. The Cape dialect is mostly enfused with the language spoken by the Malay slaves who worked in the Cape and spoke a form of broken Portuguese, the Orange River dialect developed with the influence of Koi languages and dialects developed in the Namakwaland and Griqualand West regions and the Eastern Border Afrikaans evolved from the settlers who moved East towards Natal from the Cape. ] Link.

    6. That is a blatant lie. You are suggesting that just because the Boers were in the same Colony as the Cape Dutch that they were a monolithic group when in reality the Boers had separated into a distinct group by circa 1700 & were living on the extreme ends of the Cape Colony were they had very little contact with the Cape Dutch & even stopped visiting Cape Town for resources by the early to mid 1700s.

    ReplyDelete
  47. 7. None other than the respected journalist Adriana Stuijt [ whom you dislike as she recognizes the existence of the Boers & reports on the escalating Boer / Afrikaans / White / etc. genocide ] has publicly noted that Hermann Giliomee was a Broederbonder & that he as caught rewriting the history of the Boer people turning them retroactively into "Afrikaners". The fact that Giliomee "is respected" in South Africa should be your first clue. The only reason you respect him is because he parrots your delusion concerning the Afrikaner claim to the Boer Nation.

    8. Okay fair enough. Let's for the sake of argument say that everyone at the Cape was Cape Dutch. Well the fact that a significant portion of this larger so called Cape Dutch began to trek inland just 35 years after the initial arrival of Van Riebeeck demonstrates that there are now two main groups of White Afrikaans speakers living at opposite ends of the Cape. Now consider the following. When a group moves away from a larger whole: they start to become a distinct group. Just as one establishes their own identity when they move out of their parents home. But according to your logic you assert that it is fine for the parents to move in on the children & force them BACK under their control. I doubt it very much that you would appreciate if you parents & your cousins all forced themselves into your home & claimed it as their own noting that "we are all Smiths so we are all the SAME people" using that as justification to DENY you your own inherent freedom / identity & right to make your own decisions. Daughters often take the name of their husbands thus adopting even a new surname. Just as the Boers adopted a new name when the term Trekboer was shortened & applied to all of the Trekboer descended Afrikaans speaking frontier folks.

    9. Well the Afrikaner Broederbond did in fact promote their own within academia who then set about rewriting the history books. This is on the historical record & started even with the Human & Rouseau publishing Co. This is how they started propagandizing everyone to view themselves as "Afrikaners" when in fact the term Afrikaner was never used in political context by the Boer people / nation. The AB was far more than a simple "think tank". You totally minimalize their role. They were a secretive steering committee aimed at entrenching an elite into power. The notion of furthering the "cause" of an alleged "Afrikaner people" [ which was a POLITICAL concept as no such people exist ] was simply the cover story they used to rationalize their accent to & monopolization of power.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 10. You do not study the ACTUAL history of the Boer people but only parrot the Broederbond mythology which was aimed at dispossessing the Boer Nation.

    11. Both statements are compatible because while it is irrelevant that they speak the "same" language [ as the Quebecois & Acadians do ] they also speak different dialects of the same language [ once again just as the Quebecois & Acadians do ]. But you use cleaver semantics to obscure the distinction because the fact that they speak different dialects demonstrates that they are distinct. The Serbs & Croats also basically speak the same language but different dialects of the same language. That is the crux of the distinction. Serbs are Orthodox while Croats are Catholic but they share the "same" overall religion.

    They also shared a macro State [ Yugoslavia ] yet few will state that they are not two distinct ethnic groups.

    12. Actually your early points in point 12 are correct. All those people / examples DO have different histories. But the point is that the Boers' history is certainly distinct from the Cape Dutch as they Boers are from the Trekboers & it was only the Boers who later went on the Great Trek. There were more English speakers who accompanied the Boers on the Great Trek than Cape Dutch. Therefore a prime example of different histories.

    13. That is another straw man argument because the Eastern Border Afrikaans dialect would logically have remained with the Boer descendents wherever they went. [ What an intellectual and historical cripple you are, Ron. ] Ad hominem attack.

    Quote from Afrikaner Nationalism Captures the State. [ Afrikaans was not a systematic language. Dialects differed widely — at the beginning of the century, for example, six dialects existed in the Cape province alone. Furthermore, Afrikaans had an unfavourable image for wealthy Boers. It was associated with both colour and class; the middle class regarded it as a kombuistaal — a ‘kitchen language’ to be used when addressing servants or farm labourers. Generally, the poorer the community, the more its Afrikaans differed from the ‘purer’ version spoken in the Western Cape. For example, the language spoken by the poorer peasants in Namaqualand caused concern:

    In (this area) one finds the weakest Afrikaans. Ignored by Church and State, these people have been in constant contact with Griquas and Hottentots, who speak a low semi-barbaric form of Afrikaans. We must make a distinction between civilised Afrikaans and the language of the street, playground and servants.

    Afrikaner intellectuals worked very hard to ‘clean up’ Afrikaans —they appropriated the language developed by the ‘coloured’ lower classes and claimed it as their own, ‘white’ language. They removed black and Malay as well as English influences; for example, many southern Nguni words, which had entered the dialect in the Eastern Cape, were replaced by Dutch words in the new dictionaries devised by teachers and academics, to reinforce the idea that Afrikaans was respectable and ‘white’. ] Link.

    ReplyDelete
  49. 14. [ Before the Afrikaans Bible the Boers used the Dutch Bible. Did that make them Dutch? ] You just made my whole point with that interesting admission on your part. The fact that the Boers use an Afrikaans Bible does not make them Afrikaners. The Boers even once only used Dutch as an official language of their republics but that did not make them Dutch. All though there were some Dutch who though that it DID make them Dutch in VERY MUCH THE SAME WAY YOU propagandize concerning the Afrikaner claim over the Boer people! There were quite few Dutch of the late 19th cent who certainly did see the Boers as "part of the Dutch people" in the same way that you see the Boers as being part of the Afrikaners. There are in fact some Dutch to this day who are STILL claiming the Boers [ & Afrikaners too ] as simply being part of the Dutch people. Ha ha ha ha ha! History repeats itself. Only this time YOU will be affected by this pan Dutch mentality as all Afrikaans speakers are claimed.

    15. Well for one thing membership of the AB is open to Coloureds now. Furthermore a lot a Coloureds actually call themselves Brown Afrikaners or just plain Afrikaners. Ha ha ha ha ha! Looks like you are being dispossessed from TWO angles. One by the Dutch in Europe & the other by the Coloureds. They both outnumber you the same way that you outnumber the Boers. Yet you shamelessly advocate the Afrikaner dispossession of the Boers while you hypocritically would probably loudly protest against being dispossessed by the Dutch & Coloureds. Again another ad hominem.

    16. Look up the history of <a href="http://www.myfundi.co.za/e/Jager_%28-1823%29_Afrikaner" Jager Afrikaner. His group of Khoisan people were known as Afrikaners. Ha ha ha ha ha. Hendrik Biebouw is now widely regarded to have been a Coloured. Furthermore he was regarded to have been German before & author Bernard Lugan asserts that he was French from the name Bidault. [ How you can call yourself a historian is beyond belief. ] Ha ha ha ha ha. This certainly applies to you!

    ReplyDelete
  50. 17. A quote from Professor Wallace Mills. [ culturally, Coloured people are part of the Afrikaans group—in fact, they probably had a major hand in the creation of the Afrikaans language. ] Link.

    A quote from UCLA International Institute. [ Some scholars claim that Afrikaans was formed as a pidgin, creating a means of communication between the Dutch landowners and the African slaves. These claims were based mainly on the simplification of final consonant clusters and other phonological simplifications, and the loss of certain syntactic features. ] Link.

    A quote from Effects of attitudinal changes towards creolization in Afrikaans by Ernst Kotzé University of Port Elizabeth. [ M.F. Valkhoff in his 1966 publication adds the following perspective to his view that Afrikaans resulted from partial creolization ”in the mouths of both the Coloureds and the Whites” ] Link.

    A further quote from Professor Wallace Mills. [ - the main leaders in this movement were the Du Toit brothers in Paarl. Afrikaans (at the time almost always referred to as ‘die Taal’—the Language) was a spoken, not a written language. It was a simplified version of Dutch which probably had originated among the slaves and/or Khoikhoi servants. Because young children were raised mostly by nannies, this was the language most whites learned first . Over many generations, the Taal was usually the first language of young children. Dutch remained the official language of government and the Dutch Reformed Church and thus it had to be learned later. Dutch was the written language. ] Link.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I think you do not realize the significant role the Asians slaves played in the formation of Afrikaans. It is even spoken in an Oriental cadence as noted by those who have srudied it.

    Quote: [ The tiny amount of Koi-Koi and Malay words in Afrikaans... ] Ha ha ha ha ha! I am laughing to myself here because YOU clearly are not much of an historian. Afrikaans is well known for having a lot of Malay & Khoi words. Afrikaans author André van Rensburg noted the following.

    Quote: [ Evidence in Afrikaans Language Concerning these Roots.

    My genealogy is reflected in the Afrikaans language, where other Malay words have been maintained such a baadjie -jacket, baie - a lot or plenty, piering - saucer, sjambok - wip, blatjang - chutney, piesang - banana, pondok - hut, rotang - cane. Some other words are outa - used for elderly man or servant, aia - for a lady servant and kaija - rough dwelling. It is rather interesting that most words deals with food, punishment or dwelling. Achmat Davids wrote an article: The Words the Slaves Made. In it he refers to some other words: nonnie, tronk from 'tarungka' meaning jail, baie from 'bannyak' meaning plenty or much, tamaai from 'utama' meaning big, soewaar which was first said as tjoewaar coming from 'tjoba' meaning assuredly. Other words include baklei - fight, sosatie, kabaai, katel, bobotie, oorlam, (oor)krabbetjie, amper, saam-saam from tjakki-tjakki.

    According to Hans den Besten, during the greater part of the 18th Century many slaves came from India-Sri Lanka and the others from Indonesia. The slaves from the sub-continent and some from Indonesia used Creole Portugese, others who had Indonesian parents, whether they came from India or Indonesia they used a non standard Malay. One can observe the inluence of Creole Portugese: 'tronkoe' became 'tronk, '. The Mollucans (Ambon) influence can be seen in the use of titles: "Moenie Oom/ Dokter vir my pla nie"; "Jan-hulle". Other Creole Portugese words in Afrikaans: sambreel, tarentaal, kombers, koperkapel, kraal, mielie, ramkie, brinjal, kiepersol. For further information refer to the following books by Raidt, 'Afr. en sy Euroese verlede', and Ponelis, 'the development of Afr.'). Also Boshoff & Nienaber, 'Afrikaanse etimologiee'. ] Link.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The Malay / Khoi & Portuguese influence on Afrikaans is in fact stronger than the French influence.

    18. What a joke. All Afrikaans speakers speak a "bastardized language". All languages are bastardizations of earlier forms. Eastern Border Afrikaans is simply a distinct DIALECT of the Afrikaans language. Now I see that you are simply promoting a FALSE dichotomy here because you constantly attempt to infer that I portray the Boers as "purer" when all I have ever done was relates the documented facts. Furthermore I never knew what the hell you were going on about [ over a year ago ] when you prattled on about "Boeraans" until I researched it & found out that indeed there are Boers who do in fact call their dialect Boeraans. As part of a move to reclaim their ID.

    19. Neither do I deny the fact that many Boers were devoutly religious but the fact of the matter is that Du Toit & others do note that not all Boers [ he says even probably most ] were very religious. There you go again accusing the Boers of being "fanatic" but whatever teleocratic madness the Afrikaners ever get up to they are not similarly called "fanatic" by you but are presented as examples of virtue working to "uplift Afrikaners". Though often through coercive measures where Boer identity was suppressed.

    20. Straw man argument. I never said that the Boers HAD to have their own religion to be distinct. Just that the Boers started the Dopper sect. The Boers are the descendents of the Trekboers [ & often also the Voortrekkers who emerged over a cent later ] who where shaped by a rustic & frontier lifestyle. While the Cape Dutch are descended from the folks who coalesced within the western Cape region & were shaped by a much more urbane existence.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 21. I corrected you NUMEROUS times on this now. The Cape Rebels were OVERWHELMINGLY from the Boer communities of the northeastern Cape frontier. Very few actual Cape Dutch were part of the Cape Rebels as attested to by author Michael Barthorp in the Anglo-Boer Wars wherein he noted that the Boers failed in getting the inhabitants of the western Cape region to join them & rise up against Britain. Barthorp noted that there was a lot of Cape Rebel activity in Colesberg a Boer populated town. Now I saw that odd story too of Piet Rudolph punching Paul Kruger in the face & have no idea what that was really all about except to surmise that Rudolph must view Kruger as a threat or diversion from the restoration of the Boer Republics. Though Rudolph himself has also been accused of such. I try to stay away from the politics which occur among the Boer people as it is rightly only a matter that they will have to resolve among themselves. I was needless to say quite disappointed to see that some notable Boer Republicans could not work together in a civilized manner but at the same time I do not have all the facts as to why Rudolph felt compelled to punch someone like that. Rudolph was reported to have stated that "you are doing something new" to Kruger. I do not know how to interpret this unless he is accusing Kruger of diverting from the main goal of obtaining Boer self determination.

    Frankly it is even more odd that you would even care as you no doubt view Boer infighting as something to take advantage of by promoting your mythological monolithic Afrikaner group as an alternative to Boer aspirations.

    I get the feeling that you like to see & promote apparent divisions among the Boers in order to discredit their drive for independence & self determination.

    Well Rudolph is of Boer descent therefore would rightly be called a Boer.

    Once again you are attempting to infer that the term Boer is something bestowed when it is in fact inherited.

    22. You of course do not have a shred of evidence to suggest such & even if true I would hardly call that more egregious than the theft of you ANC buddies in government. The fact that you are even willing to persecute him over these alleged transgressions [ if they can even be called that ] shows that you are committed to working against anyone who is trying to work towards the freedom of the Boer people / nation. Nice semantics there but you are clearly threatening him. If I accused you of engaging in a SCAM & dodging taxes I am sure you would feel threatened.

    More straw man arguments. I never stated that I "hate" the Afrikaners & do not even recognize the application of the term in the narrow 1950s era definition that you employ it. You have an odd habit of reversing everything I post. The problem here is that it is the Afrikaner Broederbond & even many Afrikaners that hate the Boers as they view them as a threat to their power.

    ReplyDelete
  54. What bank should he use? Considering that ABSA is the major one. You can not have it both ways. You wanted to consolidate the banks to the point where your ABSA are the biggest bank on the block - yet you do not want him to use your bank.

    23. Being usurped does not have to involve in "letting" it happen. That is the nature of usurpation. The very definition of usurpation is that it is not "allowed" to happen but that identity & authority is taken WITHOUT consent.

    24. He was clearly confused as the folks calling themselves Afrikaners in a political context were from the Cape Dutch population. I fail to see the relevance of your odd rambling further points in post 24 as I am well aware of the partial non-White origins of the White Afrikaans speakers. I was also well aware of the intelligence infiltrated nature of the AWB. Though I am surprised that you admit as much as you were previously holding them up as virtuous Afrikaners capable of no fault.

    25. Good point. I too often wonder about the "we" part as few appear to read this blog. The Boers were not "absorbed". There you go again reversing my own points. What exposes this lie & what you forget is that in order for the Boers to have been "absorbed" they would first have had to all move OUT of the Boer Republics & into Cape Town. Then they would have had to ALL marry a Cape Dutch descendent. Nothing even close to this ever occurred proving that the Boers still exist even if many were simply arbitrarily renamed Afrikaners. The words Boer & Afrikaner have never been synonymous outside of a narrow & limited political context.

    26. I have noted the differences ad naseum. Furthermore you are arguing from a disingenuous position because you are inferring that the differences which exist should be ignored so that the Afrikaners [ those that do ] can continue claim the Boer Nation.

    ReplyDelete
  55. 27. Straw man argument. Social disapproval is much stronger than legislation. You can not legislate culture but it can sure be reinforced via peer pressure. There is no credible evidence to suggest that the people ever traveled in the extreme manner that you cite & furthermore those that did were assimilated into Cape Dutch or Boer population groups. The notion of a single monolithic Afrikaner group was based entirely on political mythology & not on any on ground realty. Something else you sidestep. I already named Robert van Tonder as one of the most notable Boers who were not absorbed in the Afrikaners as he was a DIRECT descendent of two documented Boer parents. The vast majority of the Boer people can claim pure Boer heritage & the fact that you work so hard at denying this only demonstrates how far you are willing to deprive the Boers of their identity & how far your credibility has sunk.

    28. What a joke. Fascism is the FORCED INCLUSION OF PEOPLE who do not want to be included. YOU are the fascist as you are OPENLY shilling for the fascist notion that all Boers must submit to the Afrikaners. The Boers ARE already separate from the Afrikaners. One could just as easily demagogue & say that YOU want to separate yourselves from the South Africans! The only problem is that the Boers are conditioned to believe that they are part of the Afrikaners in the exact same way that the minority South Africans are now taught that they are part of the larger South Africans. If you can dispossess the Boers on this ridiculous point then YOU too WILL be dispossessed by the masses based on the same warped logic.

    29. WTF?! The Boers were Colonized by the Afrikaners! The Germans did not colonize the Boers when they arrived. The Germans did not impose their language on the Boers & get them to submit to a form of German Nationalism they way that the Afrikaners did to the Boers & get them to submit to their Afrikaner Nationalism.

    30. The fact of the matter is that one inherits one's ethnicity as opposed to your bizarre notion that it can be SUBVERTED & discarded simply because it is overshadowed by another group. You once complained on that other blog: [ you Boers are part of an exclusive club ] not realizing the irony as all ethnicities are basically exclusive by nature & that you yourself propagate the exclusivity of White Afrikaners against your Coloured cousins. You would probably die in an attempt at preventing Coloureds from being part of the Afrikaners [ as you define it ] demonstrating a rank hypocrisy on your part as you are certainly trying to propagate the term Afrikaner in an exclusive context.

    ReplyDelete
  56. 31. Well they are certainly "brainwashed" / conditioned. But it is YOU is is relying on them to be "idiots" lest they all wake up to the Afrikaner usurpation of their identity & heritage & kick you out of their republics.

    32. Who ran the Afrikaner Broederbond? The Cape Dutch had far greater influence due to their larger numbers within the Afrikaner designation / population.

    33. Straw man argument. I never said that there were "differences" in the context that you employ the term "difference". You are clearly trying to infer that the Boers have to be as different from the Cape Dutch as they are from the Chinese - as you openly implied last year. The differences that are noted are valid in the context of having developed a separate & distinct identity but they do not have be polar opposites. I noted the facts but every time I do you either dismiss them / ignore them or outright lie about what those facts are. IE: Lately you are now conflating the Trekboers with the Voortrekkers in the vain hope no one will notice that you are talking about different groups from different time frames.

    34 So basically people who have studied the situation on the ground have "no credibility " with you. Interesting comment.

    35. The Boers were notably hijacked when the Cape Dutch / Afrikaners began to usurp Boer heritage when they were starting to build the Afrikaner identity during the late 19th cent. notably through the Afrikaner Bond which author C H Thomas noted was ultimately controlled by the Dutch of Europe. D F Malan was a most notable figure og the 20th cent who used his power to hijack the Boers particularly during the centennial celebrations of the Great Trek. This was effectively used to supplant Boer traditions of freedom struggle for their own republics with the British Imperialist notion of struggling to capture control of an artificial macro State as created by the oppressors. You want Boers to remain part of the Afrikaner notion of struggling to capture the State [ or even part of ] while you disparage the Boer notion of struggling or working for the restoration of a Boer Republic & or Boer self determination.

    ReplyDelete
  57. 37. While that blog did expose the Black racial extremists you CLEARLY did it in such a White racialist manner as to REPEL anyone - particularly Westerners - who would have been sympathetic. I can not tell you how far back you have set the work of those of us who were trying to get international recognition of our plight. That blog made us all look like unstable radicals. All those who work to get the truth out have been tared with the extremist brush you wielded. I recall folks mentioning this to you folks but you met their valid concerns with disdain.

    38. How ironic! You claim that Afrikaners are no longer Afrikaners simply because they work for an enemy yet you accused myself of asserting that a Boer is no longer Boer when he works with an enemy. Mike: you are totally SELECTIVE in your application of criteria. Furthermore: that was a case of Boer leaders punching other Boer leaders.

    39. The thing is that you fail to recognize that the so called Afrikaners in fact have no actual identity of their own. They were quite happy to live under British Colonialism [ a point your buddy Professor Hermann Giliomee noted as well as Mordechai Tamarkin in Cecil Rhodes and The Cape Afrikaners. ] & help round up Boers into concentration camps. But suddenly after the second Anglo-Boer War the British began to push them to form an Afrikaner identity [ Lord Alfred Milner. ] largely based on the usurpation of Boer identity & heritage & outright ignoring the Cape Dutch roots of the Afrikaner population.

    So to you any group that reasserts its identity is "fascist". You must be pals with Cass Sunstein. The fact of the matter is that YOUR assertion that the Boers must abandon their hard fought for identity & subsume themselves into the Afrikaners is the true fascist notion.

    40. The Vikings were not an ethnic group as they were an assortment of various Scandinavian groups who were raiders. To use your own warped logic. There was no Bible in Vikingaans.

    41. Quote: [ The boers keep telling people who are not boers until we're left with 5 chumps in khaki broeks and stupid beards who feel strongly about a constantina. The sad thing is nobody gave a fuck in the first place who the "boers" are. ] Where you posted as Mcfearless at the ILUVSA blog. Furthermore I think you meant concertina.

    42. Bullshit. This is on the historical record. What do you think the Afrikaner Nationalists did in the 20th cent? Did they not capture an entire artificial macro State? They even went as far as denying the Boers to reclaim their republics in the 1940s. The whole purpose of the term Afrikaner was to create an artificial Afrikaans unity so as to capture the macro State from the British. The proof is all over the history books & extensively written about. The problem is you are too isolated within the mythology of the Afrikaner Broederbond version.

    ReplyDelete
  58. 43. You like to accuse myself of "tying to split up Afrikaners" when: A) you have zero evidence for such an outlandish accusation as you have no solid evidence to support such as baseless accusation. B) No empirical evidence even suggesting the existence of Afrikaners as narrowly defined by you. C) No motive as I do not oppose Cape Dutch Afrikaners from trying to find their own self determination if they do so desire. D) I am not proposing a "split" of a monolithic group but rather the raising awareness of the cognizance that the Boer people simply want & have the inherent right to self determination. That naturally can only come if they are free to act on their own & not be under the direction of the Afrikaners or any other form of domination.

    44. Straw man argument. I have never stated that as you do not lose your ethnicity. What I pointed out was that most of those examples of Boer traitors were acting as Afrikaners / identified solely as Afrikaners - even to the point of denying the existence of the Boer Nation as Jaap Marais did - & working totally on behalf of an Afrikaner agenda not a Boer one. In fact the Afrikaners - including the Boer descended ones worked against Boer aspirations like the notable P W Botha / Roelf Meyer & F W de Klerk etc.

    45. Well for one thing you libelously accused myself of being one without a shred of evidence of which there is none as I advocate for things which the ANC agents have harassed me over. You sir no nothing about myself & have no idea how many years of debating pro ANC thugs I have had to endure due to my pro Boer position. Furthermore you behave in a manner far more attune with being one as clearly noted particularly with that old blog & with this constant denial of the Boer people. The State apparatus can not afford to recognize the reality of the Boer Nation.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Further hypocrisy on your part arises from your selective use of the term "conspiracy theory" because you petulantly claim that the documented facts I have presented that anyone can go & read up on are "conspiracy theories" [ fact is you just do not do your homework or are suppressing perhaps both ] while on the other hand you promote the conspiracy theory that the Boers were "all absorbed" into the Afrikaners. That would have to be a MASSIVE conspiracy entailing logistical capabilities unknown to the Boers of the era & not within the realm of plausible execution as you un-academically infer that the Boers were "all absorbed" away from the bulk of the Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners & all within the bizarre time frame of less than one generation.

    ReplyDelete
  60. First off let's clear up the deliberate misconception you have with who the Trekboers were. The Trekboers were the nomadic pastoralists who trekked AWAY from the western Cape region during the late 1600s & throughout the 1700s LONG before the Great Trek. The Trekboers were the ancestors of the Boer people who were formed on the northeastern Cape frontier. The Boers were separated from & distinct from the Cape Dutch for over 150 years BEFORE the Great Trek. So your disingenuous insinuation that the Trekboers existed during the time of the Great Trek is wrong. The Boers lived among themselves within the frontier regions of the Cape. Not among the Cape Dutch of the western Cape region.

    Quote: [ These early Dutch farmers were joined by other Europeans and their populations grew. The Dutch East India Company imported slaves from Angola, Mozambique, Madagascar and other parts of the Dutch Empire to work on large plantations close to Cape Town. The seminomadic Dutch farmers expanded their settlement further from the Cape and came into conflict over land with local African populations. Their contact with the local Dutch government became more and more tenuous and most of them lived hard rural lives, moving farmsteads frequently, and quite independent of government and education. By 1745 they were known as Trekboers, which means "wandering farmers," a term which was later shortened to Boers. They were unaware of the changing politics in Europe. ] Link.

    This Link. Notes when the Trekboers began migrating inland & out of the western Cape region.

    The following is from Afrikaans author Brian M. Du Toit from The Boers in East Africa: Ethnicity and Identity on page 1.

    [ The Boers had a tradition of trekking. Boer society was born on the frontiers of white settlement and on the outskirts of civilization. As members of a frontier society they always had a hinterland, open spaces to conquer, territory to occupy. Their ancestors had moved away from the limiting confines of Cape society to settle the eastern frontier. In time this location became too restricted, and individuals and families moved north across the Orange River. ]

    The Boers are documented to have emerged on the Cape frontier away from the Cape Dutch 150 years before the Great Trek.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Therefore it is that heritage which the Boer people have & are from. Your assertion of a non existent monolithic Afrikaner group only serves to lump the Boers into a people they left behind 300 years ago. The Boers have the same inherent right to self determination that the Dutch have outside of the German population group.

    I wrote two sets of comments as I thought it did not go through so later used the blogger account.

    I would write less if I could but you make a lot of erroneous points.

    1. This coming from a pseudo historian like you who deliberately asserted that Trekboers existed during the time of the Great Trek when in fact they existed during the late 1600s & throughout the 1700s. There was a class of Trekboers that existed well into the 20th cent.

    2. Your behaviour betrays the veracity of my assessment of you.

    3. The fact of the matter is that you ARE indeed totally ignorant as you have just been caught erroneously asserting that the Trekboers existed during the era of the Great trek when in fact they existed 150 years BEFORE the Great Trek. That is the crux of why the Boers are a distinct group from the Cape Dutch. Just as the Dutch developed into a distinct group from the German people by developing away from the Germans.

    4. I have spent decades now of my life informing myself about this topic based on the facts as ascertained & noted by experts in the field from authors to professors.

    5. The Boers were formed on the Cape frontier from the impoverished nomadic pastoralists often called Trekboers away from the Cape Dutch. Some of the various European [ & some Asian as noted by Prof J A Hesse. ] arrivals settled there & amalgamated into a distinct group similarly as the Cape Dutch did within the western Cape region. The Boers originated out of the folks who developed within the northeastern Cape frontier region circa late 1600s to 1735. The Cape Dutch originated from the larger folks who coalesced into a distinct group within the western Cape region. This is the roots of the anti-colonial orientation of the Boers as their ancestors had already developed a healthy disregard for authority when they began trekking inland which was further sharpened as they began to live independently from the VOC & became self sufficient. The pro Colonial Cape Dutch did not share this same frontier conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The Afrikaans Language Museum notes that the Boers spoke a dialect historians classify as Eastern Border Afrikaans. The museum further notes that the Cape Dutch spoke a variant of West Cape Afrikaans. Various dialects of the language was spoken by other Coloured related & Khoisan groups but was not formally called Afrikaans until 1875 when some Cape Dutch intellectuals from Paarl founded an Afrikaans language movement at a time when the Boers were long since independent within their internationally recognized Boer Republics & only ever referred to their dialect as "die taal" or Boeretaal.

    No. The Cape Dutch NEVER packed up & started moving. This is why you are rightly called a distorting demagogue. It is not an ad hominem attack but simply the reality of your conduct. Stop demagoging & distorting & you will no longer be called such. The Cape Dutch were not the ones who started moving - even during the Great Trek. It was the Boer people who started moving. The Boers became a distinct people during the early part of the 1700s on the northeastern Cape frontier. Long before moving into the Natal / the Orange Free State & the Transvaal. The Boer people had existed for 150 years BEFORE the Great Trek. The Boers became distinct LONG before the Great Trek.

    Quote from History of the Afrikaans language in South Africa. [ From this, three main dialects emerged, Cape Afrikaans, Orange River Afrikaans and Eastern Border Afrikaans. The Cape dialect is mostly enfused with the language spoken by the Malay slaves who worked in the Cape and spoke a form of broken Portuguese, the Orange River dialect developed with the influence of Koi languages and dialects developed in the Namakwaland and Griqualand West regions and the Eastern Border Afrikaans evolved from the settlers who moved East towards Natal from the Cape. ] Link.

    6. That is a blatant lie. You are suggesting that just because the Boers were in the same Colony as the Cape Dutch that they were a monolithic group when in reality the Boers had separated into a distinct group by circa 1700 & were living on the extreme ends of the Cape Colony were they had very little contact with the Cape Dutch & even stopped visiting Cape Town for resources by the early to mid 1700s.

    ReplyDelete
  63. 7. None other than the respected journalist Adriana Stuijt [ whom you dislike as she recognizes the existence of the Boers & reports on the escalating Boer / Afrikaans / White / etc. genocide ] has publicly noted that Hermann Giliomee was a Broederbonder & that he was caught rewriting the history of the Boer people turning them retroactively into "Afrikaners". The fact that Giliomee "is respected" in South Africa should be your first clue. The only reason you respect him is because he parrots your delusion concerning the Afrikaner claim to the Boer Nation.

    8. Okay fair enough. Let's for the sake of argument say that everyone at the Cape was Cape Dutch. Well the fact that a significant portion of this larger so called Cape Dutch began to trek inland just 35 years after the initial arrival of Van Riebeeck demonstrates that there are now two main groups of White Afrikaans speakers living at opposite ends of the Cape. Now consider the following. When a group moves away from a larger whole: they start to become a distinct group. Just as one establishes their own identity when they move out of their parents home. But according to your logic you assert that it is fine for the parents to move in on the children & force them BACK under their control. I doubt it very much that you would appreciate if you parents & your cousins all forced themselves into your home & claimed it as their own noting that "we are all Smiths so we are all the SAME people" using that as justification to DENY you your own inherent freedom / identity & right to make your own decisions. Daughters often take the name of their husbands thus adopting even a new surname. Just as the Boers adopted a new name when the term Trekboer was shortened & applied to all of the Trekboer descended Afrikaans speaking frontier folks.

    9. Well the Afrikaner Broederbond did in fact promote their own within academia who then set about rewriting the history books. This is on the historical record & started even with the Human & Rouseau publishing Co. This is how they started propagandizing everyone to view themselves as "Afrikaners" when in fact the term Afrikaner was never used in political context by the Boer people / nation. The AB was far more than a simple "think tank". You totally minimalize their role. They were a secretive steering committee aimed at entrenching an elite into power. The notion of furthering the "cause" of an alleged "Afrikaner people" [ which was a POLITICAL concept as no such people exist ] was simply the cover story they used to rationalize their accent to & monopolization of power.

    ReplyDelete
  64. 10. You do not study the ACTUAL history of the Boer people but only parrot the Broederbond mythology which was aimed at dispossessing the Boer Nation.

    11. Both statements are compatible because while it is irrelevant that they speak the "same" language [ as the Quebecois & Acadians do ] they also speak different dialects of the same language [ once again just as the Quebecois & Acadians do ]. But you use cleaver semantics to obscure the distinction because the fact that they speak different dialects demonstrates that they are distinct. The Serbs & Croats also basically speak the same language but different dialects of the same language. That is the crux of the distinction. Serbs are Orthodox while Croats are Catholic but they share the "same" overall religion.

    They also shared a macro State [ Yugoslavia ] yet few will state that they are not two distinct ethnic groups.

    12. Actually your early points in point 12 are correct. All those people / examples DO have different histories. But the point is that the Boers' history is certainly distinct from the Cape Dutch as they Boers are from the Trekboers & it was only the Boers who later went on the Great Trek. There were more English speakers who accompanied the Boers on the Great Trek than Cape Dutch. Therefore a prime example of different histories.

    13. That is another straw man argument because the Eastern Border Afrikaans dialect would logically have remained with the Boer descendents wherever they went. [ What an intellectual and historical cripple you are, Ron. ] Ad hominem attack.

    Quote from Afrikaner Nationalism Captures the State. [ Afrikaans was not a systematic language. Dialects differed widely — at the beginning of the century, for example, six dialects existed in the Cape province alone. Furthermore, Afrikaans had an unfavourable image for wealthy Boers. It was associated with both colour and class; the middle class regarded it as a kombuistaal — a ‘kitchen language’ to be used when addressing servants or farm labourers. Generally, the poorer the community, the more its Afrikaans differed from the ‘purer’ version spoken in the Western Cape. For example, the language spoken by the poorer peasants in Namaqualand caused concern:

    In (this area) one finds the weakest Afrikaans. Ignored by Church and State, these people have been in constant contact with Griquas and Hottentots, who speak a low semi-barbaric form of Afrikaans. We must make a distinction between civilised Afrikaans and the language of the street, playground and servants.

    Afrikaner intellectuals worked very hard to ‘clean up’ Afrikaans —they appropriated the language developed by the ‘coloured’ lower classes and claimed it as their own, ‘white’ language. They removed black and Malay as well as English influences; for example, many southern Nguni words, which had entered the dialect in the Eastern Cape, were replaced by Dutch words in the new dictionaries devised by teachers and academics, to reinforce the idea that Afrikaans was respectable and ‘white’. ] Link.

    ReplyDelete
  65. 14. [ Before the Afrikaans Bible the Boers used the Dutch Bible. Did that make them Dutch? ] You just made my whole point with that interesting admission on your part. The fact that the Boers use an Afrikaans Bible does not make them Afrikaners. The Boers even once only used Dutch as an official language of their republics but that did not make them Dutch. All though there were some Dutch who though that it DID make them Dutch in VERY MUCH THE SAME WAY YOU propagandize concerning the Afrikaner claim over the Boer people! There were quite few Dutch of the late 19th cent who certainly did see the Boers as "part of the Dutch people" in the same way that you see the Boers as being part of the Afrikaners. There are in fact some Dutch to this day who are STILL claiming the Boers [ & Afrikaners too ] as simply being part of the Dutch people. Ha ha ha ha ha! History repeats itself. Only this time YOU will be affected by this pan Dutch mentality as all Afrikaans speakers are claimed.

    15. Well for one thing membership of the AB is open to Coloureds now. Furthermore a lot a Coloureds actually call themselves Brown Afrikaners or just plain Afrikaners. Ha ha ha ha ha! Looks like you are being dispossessed from TWO angles. One by the Dutch in Europe & the other by the Coloureds. They both outnumber you the same way that you outnumber the Boers. Yet you shamelessly advocate the Afrikaner dispossession of the Boers while you hypocritically would probably loudly protest against being dispossessed by the Dutch & Coloureds. Again another ad hominem.

    16. Look up the history of <a href="http://www.myfundi.co.za/e/Jager_%28-1823%29_Afrikaner" Jager Afrikaner. His group of Khoisan people were known as Afrikaners. Ha ha ha ha ha. Hendrik Biebouw is now widely regarded to have been a Coloured. Furthermore he was regarded to have been German before & author Bernard Lugan asserts that he was French from the name Bidault. [ How you can call yourself a historian is beyond belief. ] Ha ha ha ha ha. This certainly applies to you!

    ReplyDelete
  66. 17. A quote from Professor Wallace Mills. [ culturally, Coloured people are part of the Afrikaans group—in fact, they probably had a major hand in the creation of the Afrikaans language. ] Link.

    A quote from UCLA International Institute. [ Some scholars claim that Afrikaans was formed as a pidgin, creating a means of communication between the Dutch landowners and the African slaves. These claims were based mainly on the simplification of final consonant clusters and other phonological simplifications, and the loss of certain syntactic features. ] Link.

    A quote from Effects of attitudinal changes towards creolization in Afrikaans by Ernst Kotzé University of Port Elizabeth. [ M.F. Valkhoff in his 1966 publication adds the following perspective to his view that Afrikaans resulted from partial creolization ”in the mouths of both the Coloureds and the Whites” ] Link.

    A further quote from Profeessor Wallace Mills. [ - the main leaders in this movement were the Du Toit brothers in Paarl. Afrikaans (at the time almost always referred to as ‘die Taal’—the Language) was a spoken, not a written language. It was a simplified version of Dutch which probably had originated among the slaves and/or Khoikhoi servants. Because young children were raised mostly by nannies, this was the language most whites learned first . Over many generations, the Taal was usually the first language of young children. Dutch remained the official language of government and the Dutch Reformed Church and thus it had to be learned later. Dutch was the written language. ] Link.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I think do not think realize the sigificant role the Asians slaves played in the formation of Afrikaans. It is even spoken in an Oriental cadence.

    Quote: [ The tiny amount of Koi-Koi and Malay words in Afrikaans... ] Ha ha ha ha ha! I am laughing to myself here because YOU clearly are not much of an historian. Afrikaans is well known for having a lot of Malay & Khoi words. Afrikaans author André van Rensburg noted the following.

    Quote: [ Evidence in Afrikaans Language Concerning these Roots

    My genealogy is reflected in the Afrikaans language, where other Malay words have been maintained such a baadjie -jacket, baie - a lot or plenty, piering - saucer, sjambok - wip, blatjang - chutney, piesang - banana, pondok - hut, rotang - cane. Some other words are outa - used for elderly man or servant, aia - for a lady servant and kaija - rough dwelling. It is rather interesting that most words deals with food, punishment or dwelling. Achmat Davids wrote an article: The Words the Slaves Made. In it he refers to some other words: nonnie, tronk from 'tarungka' meaning jail, baie from 'bannyak' meaning plenty or much, tamaai from 'utama' meaning big, soewaar which was first said as tjoewaar coming from 'tjoba' meaning assuredly. Other words include baklei - fight, sosatie, kabaai, katel, bobotie, oorlam, (oor)krabbetjie, amper, saam-saam from tjakki-tjakki.

    According to Hans den Besten, during the greater part of the 18th Century many slaves came from India-Sri Lanka and the others from Indonesia. The slaves from the sub-continent and some from Indonesia used Creole Portugese, others who had Indonesian parents, whether they came from India or Indonesia they used a non standard Malay. One can observe the inluence of Creole Portugese: 'tronkoe' became 'tronk, '. The Mollucans (Ambon) influence can be seen in the use of titles: "Moenie Oom/ Dokter vir my pla nie"; "Jan-hulle". Other Creole Portugese words in Afrikaans: sambreel, tarentaal, kombers, koperkapel, kraal, mielie, ramkie, brinjal, kiepersol. For further information refer to the following books by Raidt, 'Afr. en sy Euroese verlede', and Ponelis, 'the development of Afr.'). Also Boshoff & Nienaber, 'Afrikaanse etimologiee'. ] Link.

    The Malay / Khoi & Portuguese influence on Afrikaans is in fact stronger than the French influence.

    18. What a joke. All Afrikaans speakers speak a "bastardized language". All languages are bastardizations of earlier forms. Eastern Border Afrikaans is simply a distinct DIALECT of the Afrikaans language. Now I see that you are simply promoting a FALSE dichotomy here because you constantly attempt to infer that I portray the Boers as "purer" when all I have ever done was relate the documented facts. Furthermore I never knew what the hell you were going on about [ over a year ago ] when you prattled on about "Boeraans" until I researched it & found out that indeed there are Boers who do in fact call their dialect Boeraans. As part of a move to reclaim their ID.

    ReplyDelete
  68. 19. Neither do I deny the fact that many Boers were devoutly religious but the fact of the matter is that Du Toit & others do note that not all Boers [ he says even probably most ] were very religious. There you go again accusing the Boers of being "fanatic" but whatever teleocratic madness the Afrikaners ever get up to they are not similarly called "fanatic" by you but are presented as examples of virtue working to "uplift Afrikaners". Though often through coercive measures where Boer identity was suppressed.

    20. Straw man argument. I never said that the Boers HAD to have their own religion to be distinct. Just that the Boers started the Dopper sect. The Boers are the descendents of the Trekboers [ & often also the Voortrekkers who emerged over a cent later ] who where shaped by a rustic & frontier lifestyle. While the Cape Dutch are descended from the folks who coalesced within the western Cape region & were shaped by a much more urbane existence.

    21. I corrected you NUMEROUS times on this now. The Cape Rebels were OVERWHELMINGLY from the Boer communities of the northeastern Cape frontier. Very few actual Cape Dutch were part of the Cape Rebels as attested to by author Michael Barthorp in the Anglo-Boer Wars wherein he noted that the Boers failed in getting the inhabitants of the western Cape region to join them & rise up against Britain. Barthorp noted that there was a lot of Cape Rebel activity in Colesberg a Boer populated town. Now I saw that odd story too of Piet Rudolph punching Paul Kruger in the face & have no idea what that was really all about except to surmise that Rudolph must view Kruger as a threat or diversion from the restoration of the Boer Republics. Though Rudolph himself has also been accused of such. I try to stay away from the politics which occur among the Boer people as it is rightly only a matter that they will have to resolve among themselves. I was needless to say quite disappointed to see that some notable Boer Republicans could not work together in a civilized manner but at the same time I do not have all the facts as to why Rudolph felt compelled to punch someone like that. Rudolph was reported to have stated that "you are doing something new" to Kruger. I do not know how to interpret this unless he is accusing Kruger of diverting from the main goal of obtaining Boer self determination.

    Frankly it is even more odd that you would even care as you no doubt view Boer infighting as something to take advantage of by promoting your mythological monolithic Afrikaner group as an alternative to Boer aspirations. I get the feeling that you like to see & promote apparent divisions among the Boers in order to discredit their drive for independence & self determination.

    Well Rudolph is of Boer descent therefore would rightly be called a Boer.

    Once again you are attempting to infer that the term Boer is something bestowed when it is in fact inherited.

    ReplyDelete
  69. 22. You of course do not have a shred of evidence to suggest such & even if true I would hardly call that more egregious than the theft of you ANC buddies in government. The fact that you are even willing to persecute him over these alleged transgressions [ if they can even be called that ] shows that you are committed to working against anyone who is trying to work towards the freedom of the Boer people / nation. Nice semantics there but you are clearly threatening him. If I accused you of engaging in a SCAM & dodging taxes I am sure you would feel threatened.

    More straw man arguments. I never stated that I "hate" the Afrikaners & do not even recognize the application of the term in the narrow 1950s era definition that you employ it. You have an odd habit of reversing everything I post. The problem here is that it is the Afrikaner Broederbond & even many Afrikaners that hate the Boers as they view them as a threat to their power.

    What bank should he use? Considering that ABSA is the major one. You can not have it both ways. You wanted to consolidate the banks to the point where your ABSA are the biggest bank on the block - yet you do not want him to use your bank.

    23. Being usurped does not have to involve in "letting" it happen. That is the nature of usurpation. The very definition of usurpation is that it is not "allowed" to happen but that identity & authority is taken WITHOUT consent.

    24. He was clearly confused as the folks calling themselves Afrikaners in a political context were from the Cape Dutch population. I fail to see the relevance of your odd rambling further points in post 24 as I am well aware of the partial non-White origins of the White Afrikaans speakers. I was also well aware of the intelligence infiltrated nature of the AWB. Though I am surprised that you admit as much as you were previously holding them up as virtuous Afrikaners capable of no fault.

    ReplyDelete
  70. 25. Good point. I too often wonder about the "we" part as few appear to read this blog. The Boers were not "absorbed". There you go again reversing my own points. What exposes this lie & what you forget is that in order for the Boers to have been "absorbed" they would first have had to all move OUT of the Boer Republics & into Cape Town. Then they would have had to ALL marry a Cape Dutch descendent. Nothing even close to this ever occurred proving that the Boers still exist even if many were simply arbitrarily renamed Afrikaners. The words Boer & Afrikaner have never been synonymous outside of a narrow & limited political context.

    26. I have noted the differences ad naseum. Furthermore you are arguing from a disingenuous position because you are inferring that the differences which exist should be ignored so that the Afrikaners [ those that do ] can continue claim the Boer Nation.

    27. Straw man argument. Social disapproval is much stronger than legislation. You can not legislate culture but it can sure be reinforced via peer pressure. There is no credible evidence to suggest that the people ever traveled in the extreme manner that you cite & furthermore those that did were assimilated into Cape Dutch or Boer population groups. The notion of a single monolithic Afrikaner group was based entirely on political mythology & not on any on ground realty. Something else you sidestep. I already named Robert van Tonder as one of the most notable Boers who were not absorbed in the Afrikaners as he was a DIRECT descendent of two documented Boer parents. The vast majority of the Boer people can claim pure Boer heritage & the fact that you work so hard at denying this only demonstrates how far you are willing to deprive the Boers of their identity & how far your credibility has sunk.

    28. What a joke. Fascism is the FORCED INCLUSION OF PEOPLE who do not want to be included. YOU are the fascist as you are OPENLY shilling for the fascist notion that all Boers must submit to the Afrikaners. The Boers ARE already separate from the Afrikaners. One could just as easily demagogue & say that YOU want to separate yourselves from the South Africans! The only problem is that the Boers are conditioned to believe that they are part of the Afrikaners in the exact same way that the minority South Africans are now taught that they are part of the larger South Africans. If you can dispossess the Boers on this ridiculous point then YOU too WILL be dispossessed by the masses based on the same warped logic.

    29. WTF?! The Boers were Colonized by the Afrikaners! The Germans did not colonize the Boers when they arrived. The Germans did not impose their language on the Boers & get them to submit to a form of German Nationalism they way that the Afrikaners did to the Boers & get them to submit to their Afrikaner Nationalism.

    ReplyDelete
  71. 30. The fact of the matter is that one inherits one's ethnicity as opposed to your bizarre notion that it can be SUBVERTED & discarded simply because it is overshadowed by another group. You once complained on that other blog: [ you Boers are part of an exclusive club ] not realizing the irony as all ethnicities are basically exclusive by nature & that you yourself propagate the exclusivity of White Afrikaners against your Coloured cousins. You would probably die in an attempt at preventing Coloureds from being part of the Afrikaners [ as you define it ] demonstrating a rank hypocrisy on your part as you are certainly trying to propagate the term Afrikaner in an exclusive context.

    31. Well they are certainly "brainwashed" / conditioned. But it is YOU is is relying on them to be "idiots" lest they all wake up to the Afrikaner usurpation of their identity & heritage & kick you out of their republics.

    32. Who ran the Afrikaner Broederbond? The Cape Dutch had far greater influence due to their larger numbers within the Afrikaner designation / population.

    33. Straw man argument. I never said that there were "differences" in the context that you employ the term "difference". You are clearly trying to infer that the Boers have to be as different from the Cape Dutch as they are from the Chinese - as you openly implied last year. The differences that are noted are valid in the context of having developed a separate & distinct identity but they do not have be polar opposites. I noted the facts but every time I do you either dismiss them / ignore them or outright lie about what those facts are. IE: Lately you are now conflating the Trekboers with the Voortrekkers in the vain hope no one will notice that you are talking about different groups from different time frames.

    34 So basically people who have studied the situation on the ground have "no credibility " with you. Interesting comment.

    35. The Boers were notably hijacked when the Cape Dutch / Afrikaners began to usurp Boer heritage when they were starting to build the Afrikaner identity during the late 19th cent. notably through the Afrikaner Bond which author C H Thomas noted was ultimately controlled by the Dutch of Europe. D F Malan was a most notable figure of the 20th cent who used his power to hijack the Boers particularly during the centennial celebrations of the Great Trek. This was effectively used to supplant Boer traditions of freedom struggle for their own republics with the British Imperialist notion of struggling to capture control of an artificial macro State as created by the oppressors. You want Boers to remain part of the Afrikaner notion of struggling to capture the State [ or even part of ] while you disparage the Boer notion of struggling or working for the restoration of a Boer Republic & or Boer self determination.

    ReplyDelete
  72. 37. While that blog did expose the Black racial extremists you CLEARLY did it in such a White racialist manner as to REPEL anyone - particularly Westerners - who would have been sympathetic. I can not tell you how far back you have set the work of those of us who were trying to get international recognition of our plight. That blog made us all look like unstable radicals. All those who work to get the truth out have been tared with the extremist brush you wielded. I recall folks mentioning this to you folks but you met their valid concerns with disdain.

    38. How ironic! You claim that Afrikaners are no longer Afrikaners simply because they work for an enemy yet you accused myself of asserting that a Boer is no longer Boer when he works with an enemy. Mike: you are totally SELECTIVE in your application of criteria. Furthermore: that was a case of Boer leaders punching other Boer leaders.

    39. The thing is that you fail to recognize that the so called Afrikaners in fact have no actual identity of their own. They were quite happy to live under British Colonialism [ a point your buddy Professor Hermann Giliomee noted as well as Mordechai Tamarkin in Cecil Rhodes and The Cape Afrikaners. ] & help round up Boers into concentration camps. But suddenly after the second Anglo-Boer War the British began to push them to form an Afrikaner identity [ Lord Alfred Milner. ] largely based on the usurpation of Boer identity & heritage & outright ignoring the Cape Dutch roots of the Afrikaner population.

    So to you any group that reasserts its identity is "fascist". You must be pals with Cass Sunstein. The fact of the matter is that YOUR assertion that the Boers must abandon their hard fought for identity & subsume themselves into the Afrikaners is the true fascist notion.

    40. The Vikings were not an ethnic group as they were an assortment of various Scandinavian groups who were raiders. To use your own warped logic. There was no Bible in Vikingaans.

    41. Quote: [ The boers keep telling people who are not boers until we're left with 5 chumps in khaki broeks and stupid beards who feel strongly about a constantina. The sad thing is nobody gave a fuck in the first place who the "boers" are. ] Where you posted as Mcfearless at the ILUVSA blog. Furthermore I think you meant concertina.

    42. Bullshit. This is on the historical record. What do you think the Afrikaner Nationalists did in the 20th cent? Did they not capture an entire artificial macro State? They even went as far as denying the Boers to reclaim their republics in the 1940s. The whole purpose of the term Afrikaner was to create an artificial Afrikaans unity so as to capture the macro State from the British. The proof is all over the history books & extensively written about. The problem is you are too isolated within the mythology of the Afrikaner Broederbond version.

    ReplyDelete
  73. 43. You like to accuse myself of "tying to split up Afrikaners" when: A) you have zero evidence for such an outlandish accusation as you have no solid evidence to support such as baseless accusation. B) No empirical evidence even suggesting the existence of Afrikaners as narrowly defined by you. C) No motive as I do not oppose Cape Dutch Afrikaners from trying to find their own self determination if they do so desire. D) I am not proposing a "split" of a monolithic group but rather the raising awareness of the cognizance that the Boer people simply want & have the inherent right to self determination. That naturally can only come if they are free to act on their own & not be under the direction of the Afrikaners or any other form of domination.

    44. Straw man argument. I have never stated that as you do not lose your ethnicity. What I pointed out was that most of those examples of Boer traitors were acting as Afrikaners / identified solely as Afrikaners - even to the point of denying the existence of the Boer Nation as Jaap Marais did - & working totally on behalf of an Afrikaner agenda not a Boer one. In fact the Afrikaners - including the Boer descended ones worked against Boer aspirations like the notable P W Botha / Roelf Meyer & F W de Klerk etc.

    45. Well for one thing you libelously accused myself of being one without a shred of evidence of which there is none as I advocate for things which the ANC agents have harassed me over. You sir no nothing about myself & have no idea how many years of debating pro ANC thugs I have had to endure due to my pro Boer position. Furthermore you behave in a manner far more attune with being one as clearly noted particularly with that old blog & with this constant denial of the Boer people. The State apparatus can not afford to recognize the reality of the Boer Nation.

    Further hypocrisy on your part arises from your selective use of the term "conspiracy theory" because you petulantly claim that the documented facts I have presented that anyone can go & read up on are "conspiracy theories" [ fact is you just do not do your homework or are suppressing perhaps both ] while on the other hand you promote the conspiracy theory that the Boers were "all absorbed" into the Afrikaners. That would have to be a MASSIVE conspiracy entailing logistical capabilities unknown to the Boers of the era & not within the realm of plausible execution as you un-academically infer that the Boers were "all absorbed" away from the bulk of the Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners & all within the bizarre time frame of less than one generation.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Ron: …you yourself propagate the exclusivity of White Afrikaners against your Coloured cousins.

    Mike: What? Coloureds are the cousins of Afrikaners? Where do you suck these lies and bullshit propaganda from, Ron?

    Ron: …The differences that are noted are valid in the context of having developed a separate & distinct identity but they do not have be polar opposites.

    Mike: So what are the differences then Ron? We already established that language and religion is irrelevant, so now you insist and continue your nonsense that the Boers and Afrikaners have “separate & distinct identities”…What is this ” identity” you are talking about? Please define these separate and distinct identities and tell us exactly what the differences are in these identities. Throughout your clap trap you are on about the “Afrikaner identity” and the “Boer identity”… come Ron…what are the differences? One moment you say, “Afrikaners in fact have no actual identity of their own” and at the same time you claim that they have a distinct and separate identity from the boers. See how confused you are and the crap you talk? Do Afrikaners have an identity or not? And if so what is the difference to the Boer identity?

    Ron: I can not (sic) tell you how far back you have set the work of those of us who were trying to get international recognition of our plight. That blog made us all look like unstable radicals. All those who work to get the truth out have been tared (sic) with the extremist brush you wielded.

    Mike: SA Sucks highlighted the misrule of South Africa by Marxist terrorists scum and was a blog that further highlighted the killing of Boers by racist black scum. You seem to be more concerned by our white racist posts than the killing of your beloved Boers by black racist trash. Please do me a favour and fuck off back to your Global Warmist, blommetjie-bende over at ILUVSA.

    Ron: The Vikings were not an ethnic group as they were an assortment of various Scandinavian groups who were raiders.

    Mike: What nonsense. The Vikings were excellent traders and farmers. Some became raiders and ironically they seized to exist when they ditched their own Gods and adopted the pacific Christian religion.
    Ron: “Where you posted as Mcfearless at the ILUVSA blog. Furthermore I think you meant concertina.”

    Mike: Ag please…What utter bollocks. I do not even look at that blog, let alone post on there. Just face it Ron. There are lots of people who see through your propaganda bullshit.

    Ron: the Boer people simply want & have the inherent right to self determination. That naturally can only come if they are free to act on their own & not be under the direction of the Afrikaners or any other form of domination.

    Mike: OK Ron. The Boers are free. You can go and find the few that are true Boers from both parent’s sides and can prove it…and you can go and re-establish and rule your own Boer Republics…all twelve or so of you.

    Ron: …with this constant denial of the Boer people…

    Mike: You made the claim. You prove it. Where are these “Boers” that you claim? Do they have Boer ID documents, Passports? How does one recognize a Boer? What are the differences in “Identity” as you claim? Just because I question your claims and ask for proof does not make me an enemy of the Boers or an enemy agent as you so stupidly and outlandishly claims. In your warped conspiracy mind everyone who dares oppose your views and bullshit interpretations of history is an enemy agent. Get real you intellectual midget.

    ReplyDelete
  75. See, Ron, let me use an example. I challenged you in my point 27 above to deliver proof after you made wild claims such as that Boers were Never allowed to marry Afrikaners. I simply wanted proof off this legislation…What is your answer?

    It is a “Strawman argument”…Hey? WTF? It is no argument…Where is the proof I asked for you fucking idiot?

    See? You cannot even deliver the simplest proof to your outright lies.

    You make a further claim… “The vast majority of the Boer people can claim pure Boer heritage”…

    “Vast Majority”, Ron? How many exactly? What percentage? Who are these people? Prove it Ron. Please supply proof to your claims or it will be dismissed with the utter contempt for your pseudo history nonsense that it deserves. What is the bet you once again cannot supply any proof as usual?

    About point 22 that you say I do not have evidence of Theuns Cloete soliciting money online…You are wrong Ron. I took screenshots, complete with his ABSA bank account number, before he could take it ofline.

    In point 17 I challenged you to deliver proof of the fact that you claimed that Cape Malays and Hottentots were the originators of Afrikaans. Again you can only cite some interpretations, views and claims, no proof whatsoever.

    Even your own claim of “Some scholars claim that Afrikaans was formed as a pidgin, creating a means of communication between the Dutch landowners and the African slaves.” Proves my point. If Afrikans started as a mutual agreement to communicate between two groups of European and coloureds, how can you claim that the coloureds were the “originators” and not the whites? Surely they were then both the originators? From two sides…

    I always say that the proof is in the pudding. Look at the language white Afrikaners speak today and then look at the crap bastardization that coloureds speak then tell me who originated Afrikaans.

    Bout point 16 and Hendrik Biebouw…This link says he was white and of Dutch descent on both mother and father side, although his father also had a daughter with a slave woman. http://newhistory.co.za/Part-1-Chapter-2-The-rise-of-the-new-communities-Afrikaners-Hendrik-Biebouw-the-first-Afrikaner/

    Not only was he the first “Afrikaner”, but also the first one to rebel against the Colonial occupation of the Cape. The first Afrikaner freedom fighter if you want.

    In point 13 I asked you for the proof of more differences between Afrikaans and Eastern Border Afrikaans. You so far have supplied one example, namely eergister and voorgister. In German “Eergister” would be “Vorgestern”. Nevertheless you have failed once more to back up your ludicrous claims with facts.

    In point 9 I asked you for the proof of how the Afrikanerbond rewrote history. You could not supply one example of an author, no names of books. Nothing. Again you suck your facts out of your arse.

    Please Ron…Take a hike. Delete yourself from the internet, because you are throwing your name away with this crap. Your bullshit anachronistic history is hilarious. You cannot supply even the simplest of proof to your ridiculous claims.

    You have been challenged numerous times to deliver such proof and you could never do so.

    Everything you utter is fantasy and fable, dreamed up in the twisted brandy nebula of your half a brain. Get it in your thick skull…you are not speaking to 14 year old kids in your former history classes anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Ron: Professors & authors from around the world recognize the Boers as a distinct entity from the bulk of the Wizard of Oz / Big Bother themed Afrikaner designation.

    Mike: Who are these professors and authors. Please supply names.

    Ron: …you do not support the Boer Republicans…

    Mike: Bollocks

    Ron: Historians have documented & classified the Eastern Border Afrikaans dialect.

    Mike: At the most a dialect not a distinct different language as you tried to claim. I have asked you before to supply the differences in the dialects. So far you came up with one word. Voorgister instead of Eergister. Dialects appear in all languages and it is not criteria for self determination. This means that England or Germany should split up hundreds of independent counties.

    Ron: The Afrikaner Broederbond rewrote history by promoting their own professors into positions. The Human & Rouseau publishing company rewrote the history books too.

    Mike: I have asked you many times before. Please supply proof.

    Ron: Blah,blah…wizard of Oz, 1984, pseudo psycho babble…blah, blah

    Mike: yawn. Give me proof of this identity that Boers have.

    Ron: Now if you really want: the matter of proving the existence of the Boers could even end up in court in a culmination of a blend of Miracle on 34th Street & Spartacus because if you really want - it can be arranged for every Boer on Earth to come parading through the court room affirming that they are Boers.

    Mike: Go for it. I would love to see that. Problem is I doubt it if you can pull it off. You probably cannot organize a piss-up in a shebeen.

    Ron: why in the world are you OPPOSING an ally in the fight against the ANC.
    Mike: I take it you are talking about Cloete. I merely raised a point that the man solicited money from the public as donations in order to “Help the Boers” without having a registration number to do so. This is illegal in South Africa. Any charity that receives donations has to be registered. Cloete was thus acting illegally and deceiving people. A call to SARS will also establish if he ever paid tax on the donations he received. It has nothing to do with Cloete recognizing Boers. It is plain and simple verneukery. I pointed this out so that the public can open their eyes for such scams.

    Ron: I never thought the (sic) I would live to see the day when a supposed White Nationalist would be OPPOSED to Boer self determination.

    Mike: White Nationalist? Ghmf…ignorance is bliss I suppose. Do you even know what White Nationalism is? I am a “Nationalist” not a “White Nationalist”. Read my latest post on the Myth of White and Black Nationalism. As a Nationalist I fully support the self determination of all nations. The simple point is that I see the Afrikaner as a nation, you do not. You see the Boers as a Nation. I say there is no difference between an Afrikaner and a Boer, you say there is, but has continuously failed, failed, failed to deliver any proof that I requested. I do not deny that the Boers exist either. I just call them all Afrikaners. There might have been a difference between Boers of a Hundred years ago and the Afrikaans speaking people from the Cape, but this distinction has fallen away. Today there is but one and that is the Afrikaner.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Ron: I never said the Cape Malay & Hottentots were the originators of Afrikaans…

    Mike: Liar. Here are your exact words quoted from above…complete with Capitals. ”the Coloureds are the ORIGINATORS of the Afrikaans language & the fact that you neglect to realize this further destroys whatever credibility you ever hoped to have.”

    You have just destroyed your own credibility, Ron.


    Ron: YOU are the one who made the claim that the Boers do not exist.

    Mike: Bollocks. What I said is that Afrikaner and Boer are (today) synonyms. Check point seven above. It is the same thing with a different name. There is no difference. You claim there are differences. All of which I have questioned and proved to be nonsense such as language and religion. You even admitted that language and religion are irrelevant. I then again challenged you to state these difference. Deliver proof of your claims. You could not.

    Ron: You are playing a ridiculous semantic claim by implyng (sic) that there has to be LEGISLATION denying the Boers to marry Cape Dutch when all that was required was strong social disapproval which is FAR stronger than legislation because you can not legislate culture.

    Mike: Your words were, “None other than Theuns Cloete publicly noted that the Boers WERE NOT ALLOWED to marry the Cape Dutch: so how the hell could they have "intermarried". Now according to you “Not allowed” becomes social disapproval? Please Ron, get real. You cannot provide any proof of any of your ridiculous claims.

    Ron: there are 1.5 million Boers

    Mike: Proof please. What are the criteria for being a Boer? Where are they registered? Do they carry I.D.’s?

    Ron: I noted that the Boers have a distinct identity from the Afrikaners.

    Mike: DELIVER THE PROOF!

    Ron: the Afrikaner identity first emerged as an identity within the coloured and mixed working class community.

    Mike: Ah now it becomes clear. In your eyes Afrikaners are coloureds. Boers are white. Afrikaners speak coloured language and the Boers a sophisticated Afrikaans. Afrikaners fought against the Boers. Afrikaners hijacked the Boer culture. Ag, please, Ron. What utter junk. What total crap you speak. Get a life you halfwit moron.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Michael Dowling12:03 am

    A bit late now to be talking of what the legalities were, don't you think? The fact is, whilst having the most powerful armed forces on the African continent, the Afrikaners voted en masse to surrender their birthright without a single shot being fired. It was an act of capitulation without parallel in history.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous12:45 pm

    Jeeez isn't Ron just the biggest wingnut ever?

    Ron I'm a Boer and an Afrikaner.

    I understand your mission is to divide, but this time it will be in vane, because your lies are to blatant.

    ReplyDelete
  80. ron was accurate in his statements and about the the difference between boers and cape dutch and how the cape dutch referred to themselves as afrikaners. now we all are afrikaners after 1950 or so but we are boer afrikaners and afrikaner afrikaners if you understand what i'm saying. however ron's statement about the originaters of afrikaans and first afrikaners is wrong as mostly the first settlers in the cape called themselves afrikaners. the cape dutch are of dutch descend and the boers are of german, french, even hungarian and some dutch descend. as the majority of dutch arrived in the cape smaller groups of germans and french settle in the cape and later northern cape. these are the people who didn't want to be ruled by the british and didn't support them like the cape dutch did.they wanted to be free, independent and serve their God freely. these are the main reasons they came here and these are the boers who started moving further and further away from the cape dutch especially after the british started settling in the cape.the cape dutch preffered the british and were against the boers just like the british and later fought against the boers alongside the english.they were more interested in fulfilling their greed and liked blaming their faults on the boers.example hf verwoerd said the griquas were not allowed to have a party and vote anymore but no one knows that and who got the fault for that... the boers. no offence intended to any non boers but just stating some facts.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous8:09 am

    and this brings us back to the article. coming back to fh verwoerd who was a cape dutch. he supported the banana republic of the english who were standing behind apartheid.the last boer leader was hans strijdom who wanted to bring back the boer republics where people could govern themselves example the griquas or griqualand. but unfortunately the cape dutch had the same view as the british and supported the british system of apartheid and were most of the leaders of the country. 1958 verwoerd came into power and implemented apartheid. if a real boer leader was still the prime minister might there have never been apartheid. and the anc would also not be in controll now as there would not have been this anti-apartheid vote for the anc later on in 1994 and working fw de klerk out of the parliament. we would have lived normally in peace like before and the blacks might have stood a better chance to have voting power earlier as there would have been no hf verwoerd or other cape dutch taking their right away to vote. today lies are spread about the boers and cape dutch leaders are being referred to as boers like jan smuts who betrayed the boers and supported the english, so there is total confusion under the communuity today

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anonymous12:55 am

    Ron is not trying to divide - he wants the Boers to stand together and does not like the superficial political divisions that are imposed onto the Boer population. Never have I ever seen him promote one Boer organization over another or disparage or bad mouth a particular organization. He is critical of the use of the term Afrikaner to describe Boers (seeing as Boers are a minority as "Afrikaners" as he rightly noted) but totally supports the Boer people in their struggle. What a joke August 24 commenter is because all you did was accuse but never provided a single proof.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous12:02 am

    Just have to point out that Ron is quite right on quite a few of the major points he raised in this debate based on my own study of the matter. Here are some quoted passages.

    From Page 33 of The Afrikaners: an Historical Interpretation. By Godfrey Hugh Lancelot Le May. 1995. Quote: " What divided the two segments of the Afrikaner people was a difference in culture between the relatively sophisticated Cape Dutchman, literate, urbanized and in touch with Europe, and the rough-hewed Boer".

    From the front cover of the book we read: "The book highlights the distinctions between the settled bourgeois Afrikaner of the urbanized western Cape and the traditional Boer farmer of the plateau..."

    Concerning the birth of the Afrikaans language I source to none other than Professor Hermann Giliomee, a source Mike tends to approve of and promote while Ron on the other hand (as well as Adriana Stuijt) often criticizes for his (Giliomee) obvious one dimensional interpretation of the white Afrikaans communities and its consequent glossing over of the distinct nature of the Boer people. Quote: "Together with their slaves and semi free servants they turned the Dutch language into Afrikaans, one of the genuinely multi racial achievements of the new colony." Source: The Afrikaners: biography of a people. By Hermann Buhr Giliomee.

    Concerning the trouble with the use of the term Afrikaner. I quote page 74 from The rise of Afrikanerdom: power, apartheid, and the Afrikaner civil religion By T. Dunbar Moodie. Quote "In an article dated 1891, sent to a Dutch student magazine, Hertzog wrote that "the friction is not between Dutch speaking colonists and the colonial Englishmen, but between the colonist in Africa and the Englishman 'at home'... France, Holland, Germany, England each had a share in the origin of this people, and thus the name Afrikaner includes them all, both Hollander and Englishman, who have learned to unite their concerns with those of the land which they have made their home". Therefore the term Afrikaner is just a political label applied to both the Afrikaans speaker and English speaker who have subscribed to a collectivist ideological point of view.

    The term Afrikaner was actually used by a group of nomadic Griquas led by a Jager Afrikaner long before the white population began to adopt the term. Quote: "The most famous of the Orlam (Malay for 'wise guys') was Jager Afrikaner, an escaped Khoisan farm worker. His group called themselves "Afrikaners" after him. When they migrated to central Namiba, the Afrikaners stole sheep from the Nama. In retaliation, the Nama called them "Gu-nu", 'sheep stealers'". Source: Disparate Cultures:
    Shock Of the Other, Collision, Apartness, and Resolution.

    Here Giliomee again states in the introduction of his book The Afrikaners: biography of a people. "The term Afrikaner for Whites was first used early in the eighteenth century, but it had to vie with designations like burgher, Christian, Dutchmen and Boer. For the period 1652 to approximately 1875 this book mostly uses burgher for a White person who spoke Dutch or Afrikaans; for the history after 1875 it employs the term Afrikaner, although it was not until the mid twentieth century that the term was reserved for white Afrikaans speakers."

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anonymous12:04 am

    More from Giliomee on the origin of the Afrikaans language and the Cape Dutch center of power in shaping and directing an Afrikaner consciousness. Which of course co-opted the smaller Boer people in the process without much very much consultation.

    Quote: "The Culture Brokers of the Western Cape during the 1870s".

    "It was in the Paarl-Wellington area that the first conscious attempts were made to develop a specific ethnic ideology for the Dutch-Afrikaners. The leading role was taken by two Dutch school teachers, A. Pannevis and C.P. Hoogenhout, who had settled in the area in the 1860s, and a Dutch Reformed Church minister, S.J. du Toit, the son of a Paarl wine grower. A complex set of concerns drove these men. In the first place, they were deeply disturbed by the way in which industrialization and the secularization of education were affecting Dutch-Afrikaner society. They wished to encapsulate Dutch-Afrikaners in their own institutions and culture so as to deflect alien influences. Second, they were motivated by a concern with the more general cultural crisis.

    Ironically, the initial attempts at uplift were not directed at Dutch-Afrikaners. A part-time missionary, Pannevis was at first moved by the plight of the coloured population of the Western Cape whose educational opportunities were even poorer than those of the Dutch-Afrikaners. He was greatly concerned that thousands of them were unable to understand the Bible in either Dutch or English. In 1872 he made a plea in the Zuid-Afrikaan that for their sake the Bible be translated into Afrikaans, a language spoken by the vast majority of them.

    Before Pannevis's plea, Afrikaans had been used in religious pamphlets and magazines directed at coloured Malays and Christians. Some 300 letters, mostly written by whites, had appeared in newspapers. However, whites used it as a dialect—or the 'lowest vernacular'—to amuse or to poke fun at the lower classes. 'Afrikaans' was a collective term denoting all the corrupted usages of Dutch in the colony. Pannevis, however, realized that Afrikaans was an excellent medium for making the Bible accessible and for providing education to poor and uneducated people. This proposal to render the Bible in Afrikaans for the coloureds was soon de-emphasized, however, and from the mid-1870s Pannevis and Hoogenhout used all their efforts to persuade the Dutch-Afrikaners that Afrikaans was a language in its own right and that it was the true language of the white Dutch-Afrikaners.

    Found at this link: publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft158004rs&doc.view=content&chunk.id=d0e505&toc.depth=1&anchor.id=0&brand=eschol Entitled: The Beginnings of Afrikaner Ethnic Consciousness, 1850–1915.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anonymous12:06 am

    The following source: http://www.tourismcapetown.co.za/xxl/_lang/en/_site/visit-travel/_area/westerncape/_subArea/355760/_subArea2/358121/_subArea3/363451/_articleId/363448/index.html notes that the Trekboers began to move away from the western Cape in the late 17th century thereby proving that the Boers are in fact a distinct people from the Cape Dutch ie: those who were later called Afrikaners.

    Author Oliver Ransford noted on page 1 of his 1973 book: The Great Trek that the Trekboers were "the nucleus of a new nation" thus demonstrating that they were their own people and not part of the Cape Dutch whose nucleus was at Cape Town.

    Looks like Ron is totally vindicated and ironically I demonstrated this in part with a source (Giliomee) he dislikes while Mike likes. The truth about the distinct status of the Boers has always been right there for anyone to see if they were only to simply read up and research the topic yet for some odd reason we like to attack folks like Ron , Adriana and Professor Tobias Louw for simply articulating the obvious. The sky will not fall if we admit that the Boers are a distinct people from the Afrikaners... in fact it will empower the Boers as a result their break from the politics of Afrikaner led political division.

    ReplyDelete
  86. haha mike you funny man. everyone knows
    Paul Kruger said the boers are not the same as them(afrikaners). he called himself a boer and did not walk the same path as the afrikaners. he said don't call me an afrikaner call me a boer. we are not the same

    ReplyDelete
  87. I really enjoy reading these articles and find many truths in them, most of them unknown to me before. Keep up the great work.

    However...

    I am a Boer. I eat BOEREwors, drink BOEREtroos, listen to BOEREmusiek and my great-great-uncle was killed in the Anglo-BOER War. Not Afrikanerwors, Afrikanertroos, Afrikanermusiek and definetely not the Anglo-Afrikaner War. The distinction between Boer and Afrikaner goes back more than a century. Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica gives different descriptions.

    That said there is a lot of feelings between the two groups that can be sorted out. Yes, the Afrikaners are traditionaly more liberal etc., but remember the division between the Northern and Southern kingdoms when Israel and Juda split. Even though they had ideological differences they still had the same origins. I believe the same of the Afrikaners and Boers.

    My point is this: Yes, the Boere and Afrikaners could do a lot better if they stand together, but remember that each has his own identity and culture. As a Boer I must remember that not all Afrikaners are the same - just think about the Cape Rebels (Afrikaners) who fought with my ancestors against the imperialists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donder9:41 pm

      Qoheleth. The Cape Rebels in fact were not Afrikaners but were from the Boers of the Cape frontier. Most of the Afrikaners were on the side of the British. The Cape Boers of the frontier established a separate identity distinct from the Afrikaners. The Cape Rebels were mostly Boers from the same towns the Voortrekkers came from during the Great Trek.

      Delete
  88. Anonymous3:05 pm

    thank god that you lot of afrikaners couldnt even remotely get along. as a english speaking white male south african i and other english speaking wm saffers were treated like shit in the army... your army you dumb dutchman, fighting with you ,you flipping dumb arse dutchman. its no wonder that you lot couldnt get your act together. ... thank goodness you couldnt.... you were bloody useless...dont compare yourselves to israelis etc you lot were so far behind and now you are no where..serves you right. many/most english south africans could still [possibly] move abroad ..like me but you lot are well and truly stuck... serves you bloody right.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anonymous12:20 pm

    Het enige een van julle dalk beeld material van die protes optogte tydens die onderhandelinge by die World Trade Centre?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Anonymous8:32 am

    Goodness me. My head hurts after reading all these posts. You know, I really don't understand why you were arguing about this. Under our current circumstances, it really just doesn't matter. Why? Because whether a Akrikaner, Boer, Cape Dutch, English man, or someone that moved here from anyplace in the world...Right now, if you are white you are a target. They do not care where you came from. They do not care whether you are a Afrikaner/Boer, akrikaans/english, Christian/atheist, rich/poor, libtard/right winger. You are white = you must be exterminated. I honestly do not know our history well enough to enter into debate with either of you. By the time I was in school we were already being taught how bad the white people of this country are and how the black people had to suffer because of us. We weren't allowed to learn the good and the bad of our own people, make up our own minds, or be proud of who we are, where we came from, what we have achieved. In my heart I knew that this wasn't the whole story but I did not know where to go or who to speak to about finding the truth. Tired of being lied to, I only recently began looking deeper just to find every second person out there having a different version. That is so not helping our people to learn the truth and unite. Bottom line is...we need to put our differences aside and stand together if we are to get through this silent genocide of the white people in South Africa. Afrikaner, Boer, Cape Dutch, English people, it dos not matter. We ALL need to unite. If we survive this, then we can argue about who is who and who did what. Till then...It. Simply. Does. Not. Matter. Currently, we are our own worst enemy and that is without all the traitors in our mist.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Reading all this stuff one wonders whether Boers are not creators of their own downfall.
    In 1950 a new immigrant to S.A., Douglas Reed wrote:
    ..The white men were far from numerous in South Africa itself, and this white bridgehead might eventually collapse if the white man on the beaches spent their years and strength in dispute with each other.
    The traveler in South Africa finds all European there, Afrikaner and Briton, preoccupied with problems, so diverse in different places and so complex in all, that after listening to the great argument about them he might think: “here is something which only God can now put right, not man, and He is surely preparing his millstones’. Of all the many opinions I heard, however, one seemed to me likely to be right: that there is in truth only one problem, and that if it were solved the others might disappear as the white ants vanish when the burrow of their huge, slug-like and spawn-laden empress is exposed. It is that of the small white population, which is caused by political feud. Had South Africa ten million Europeans, instead of two and half, the problem of ‘white survival’ might fade away, and with it the other problems, which in fact are all vari-coloured facets of this central problem. The inferiority of numbers makes the white man fear the prolific darker man among whom he lives and hesitate to help this man’s advance, so that he puts himself in light which he himself dislikes. Equality of numbers, and the movement towards superiority, would establish South Africa as a white man’s country, the cornerstone of a great continent of boundless prospects. The Afrikaner does not admit that. He believes immigration would swamp his Afrikanerdom, which he is resolved to make supreme. He is right that to the extent that it would make the exclusive Afrikaner Republic impossible, but I met no sober judge who thought South Africa could long survive in that form; the splendid future, all agreed, was only open to a united nation.
    …The other States of Commonwealth, formerly apathetic about immigration, actively encouraged it after the lessons of the second twentieth-century war. Canada, Australia and New Zealand set about to increase their European population and welcomed British settlers foremost. The Nationalist Afrikaner took the other road. I do not presume that British immigration alone could produce the greater numbers which South Africa needs.
    White immigration from anywhere in Northern Europe would be as good, but it is difficult to see from what other quarters sufficient numbers could come, and I believe the Nationalist Afrikaner is in fact opposed to large scale immigration from any direction, fearing the submergence of dominant Afrikanerdom.
    The adventurous white politicians have appeared and are active in all countries, fanning the disputes of white men and the grievances of dark ones for their own end, the servile World State. The Nationalist Afrikaner, a rare white man among multiplying dark ones, still sits on the stoep of his homestead among the gum trees, with six thousand flat acres around, nursing ancient rancours and spiting the times.

    ReplyDelete