text:
User talk:Ron7

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Afrikaners
If you are going to offload such stuff on to my talkpage you should at least have the decency to sign your name. -max rspct 12:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

First Time.
Well it was the first time that I have ever participated in a talk page of a member / user so I am not even aware of the protocol. Furthermore: since all you have to do to see who posted is to check the history page I did not think that it was necessary to sign it. Now don't sit there & blame me for my contribution to your talk page when it was you who wrote the erroneous sentence concerning the goal of Orania in the Afrikaner section. What am I supposed to do, just ignore it? I have studied South African history including the long & arduous history of the Boer nation for many years now so if I can point out the facts on the talk page of the author of an erroneous statement: then it is my right to do so. This is what talk pages are for. I for one do not know why you are behaving as if you have been offended simply because I chose to share a little knowledge of the situation in question in order to clarify an erroneous assumption made on your part.

Ron7

Cape Dutch
Ron, I have not come accross the term Cape Dutch in any Afrikaans work accept when it is narated from a British standpoint. There is no equavalent for it in Afrikaans either, unless you use Kaaps-Hollands which is a building style or Reffers to the pre-British colony under the VOC. In the editing you did on the Afrikaner page, is it possible you are mixing the Cape Dutch term with non-Voortrekker? Would you mind if we correct that? --Uerasde2001 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No you are misunderstanding. There were numerous Boers of non Voortrekker descent as a number of Boers from the Cape frontier did not go on the Great Trek. The term Cape Dutch was used to refer to those folks who coalesced within the south Western Cape region at a time when the Boers were developing on the north eastern Cape frontier. The Broederbond rewrote history in such a way as to distort & to hide the distinctions between Boer & Cape Dutch so it is not surprising to read that there is still not much on this topic in Afrikaans as most of the history books are STILL very influenced by the skewed Broederbond propaganda as they were aiming at creating a single White Afrikaans speaking population group for the purposes of dominating the political realm. Therefore it is obvious any mentioning of the Cape Dutch would have scuppered that. Furthermore some Cape Dutch did become Voortrekkers [ though very few as there were much more English speakers who became Voortrekkers with those trekking Boers than Cape Dutch ] so I am not just talking about folks of non Voortrekker descent [ as many Boers also did not become Voortrekkers ] as I am talking about those pro Colonial anti-independence oriented settled Afrikaans speakers who were native to the Western Cape region.

[ The majority of the original white settlers, known as Cape Dutch, or in frontier regions Boers, maintained a nominal loyalty to the Dutch Reformed Church. ]

Click here for the link.

This term is noted by various historians such as the above link.

Ron7 (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There is in fact an Afrikaans equivalent to the term Cape Dutch. The term is: Kaapenaar. This term was used in a paper from the political science department of the Université du Québec à Montréal presented to the University of the Western Cape in 1997.

Quote from paper: [ Some may even have defined themselves as Transvalers or as Kaapenaars (Cape Dutch) before they saw themselves as Afrikaners. ]

The term Kaapenaar was almost certainly obscured by the old Afrikaner Broederbond controlled South Africa seeing as how it was in their political interests to hide the term in order to co-opt the smaller Boer people onto the Afrikaner project which promoted the illusion of a monolithic Caucasian Afrikaans speaking population group. The Boer activist & founder of Randburg [ 1959 ] Robert van Tonder also used this term in print as well in various places within Chapter 13 of his book Boerestaat. An excerpt follows.

Quote from Boerestaat: [ After 1910 in the Union of South Africa we could no longer vote for our own faulk representatives in our own state. Even if we won all the seats in Transvaal and Free State it would have been to no avail because the Cape and Natal also had to be won in an election in order to gain the political edge. Now in the word 'Afrikaner' with its new meaning of an 'Afrikaans-speaking white citizen of South Africa' became a useful political tool. It was built up as being the name of the Faulk in order to gain political power by drawing all 'Afrikaans'-speakers together at the ballot-box. Before this it had never been the name of a faulk. There were people who referred to themselves as Africaanders but it was to indicate that they were not natives of Europe or Batavia but natives of Africa. There was never any reference to the Afrikaner faulk of Transvaal and Free State. No, we were world renowned as Boere and our states were world renowned as the Boere Republics. ''' The 'Kapenaars' were known as 'Colonials' or 'Cape Dutch' and the bunch in Natal as Colonials. ''' The word 'Afrikaner' references all sorts of things belonging to an entire continent but it does not reference a specific faulk. The inhabitants of nearly all 53 countries listed at the start of this book are 'Afrikaners' or Africans. Linguistically that is the only correct meaning of the word 'Afrikaner'. ] End of quote from Boerestaat.

Given the well known teleocratic agenda of the Afrikaner Broederbond during the 20th cent. it is not surprising that it might have been difficult for Afrikaans speakers to have found the term Kaapenaar too often in print since education was controlled by the Broederbond. This Broederbond hiding of important history relating to the distinct origins of the Boer people apart from the Cape Dutch is illustrated in the following excerpt.

Quote: [ For Afrikaners the century between the British occupation of the Cape in 1806 and the execution of Jopie Fourie in December 1914 was the period of revelation. During that era, God made known His will for the Afrikaner people. Prior to that period events were unimportant except to the extent that they delineated a scant "myth of origin". ] From: the second page of The Rise of Afrikanerdom: Power, Apartheid, and the Afrikaner Civil Religion. T. Dunbar Moodie.

Considering that events prior to the 19th cent were extremely important concerning the Boer people as they had trekked out of the western Cape region throughout the 1700s & were forced to survive on the harsh Cape frontier [ noted by author Michael Barthorpe ] without the protection of the State as a distinct entity from the Cape Dutch - it is quite telling that the Afrikaner political group of the 20th cent. would outright omit much mention of that entire era & act as though it never happened despite documentation. The remnant Afrikaner political group to this day still seek to maintain their control over the Boer people including also over their history & cultural monuments as they have the wealth & power at their disposal to do so while the largely working class Boer people [ many of whom are living below the poverty line ] just do not.

Ron7 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Reinstated Edits.
Thanks, I reinstated some edits too; it seems there are some people who believes that Afrikaner patriotism automatically equals racism due to the history of apartheid and such, while it is not so; Afrikaner can be patriot in the same way as a person of any other nation can be. In a similar way the creating of Jewish homeland (Israel) is usually not considered racism on itself; and Israel was created in already inhabitted land, where people were driven off it. While Orania is built in private land, formerly an abandoned town; nobody lost anything because of it. Alcatel 23:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Ron, are you really trying to tell me that a report by a SA agricultural BANK is the basis for for your claim that GENOCIDE against "Boer" farmers is being perpetuated by blacks in south africa??? > "agricultural department of a bank in South Africa has calculated the per capita murder rate of ethno-European farmers" -max rspct 16:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Boer Genocide.
This in fact is hardly the only source for the increasingly more well known genocide against the Boer farmers of South Africa. Gregory Stanton from the United Nations mandated Genocide Watch raised the alert regarding the Boer genocide over 3 years ago which he has put at stage six. This is rather serious. The American CBS program 60 Minutes aired a segment on this very topic in January of 1999 featuring Boer farmers being interviewed by Ed Bradley & reran the segment on July 1999. One of the people Bradley interviewed was a one Mr Marais -a very common Boer surname of French Huguenot origin. The anti-apartheid jouranlist Adriana Stuijt relocated in the Netherlands has been reporting & raising international awareness of this genocide. The British media have been reporting on this growing genocide & have reported the death toll numbers. Also: an American investigative journalist named Anthony C. LoBaido has been reporting on this genocide as well.

Genocide Watch:

Over 1000 Boer Farmers In South Africa Have Been Murdered Since 1991

Copyright 2002 Genocide Watch

This Genocide Watch is to raise an alert concerning the number of Boer farmers slain since the end of apartheid in South Africa. The threat of destruction of a group must not be ignored because its numbers are small or its members disfavoured because they have acted in discriminatory ways in the past. A critical factor in this analysis is the total remaining number of Boer farmers. The total number of ethno-European farmers in South Africa has been estimated at approximately 40,000 to 45,000. The majority of ethno-European farmers are Boers. In world context, this may seem to be a small number of people. But such absolute numbers are biased against recognition of threats to the survival of minorities. The smaller the minority the more severe this bias.

The above is from: Genocide Watch.

The very fact that Geocide Watch has issued an alert concerning this genocide & pointed out that the Boer farmers are at stage six should certainly be of note.

This website is dedicated to their (the Boer) heritage and their history, because they are targeted for genocide by the African National Congress, the Communistic One Ruling Party Government of South Africa. If you look at the 8 stages of genocide at www.genocidewatch.org/8stages.htm written by Dr Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch - an international organisation raised up by the United Nations to monitor genocide around the world, you will see that the Boers are in the 5th stage of genocide, entering the 6th stage.

The above is from: Stop Boer Genocide.

The anti-apartheid journalist Adriana Stuijt who is raising awareness about this issue has a web site which can be found at: Censorbugbear.

I would strongly suggest viewing the television special concerning this issue at: the following link.

Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch as well as Professor Neels Moolman who wrote an informantive book concerning the genocide are both featured in the television special.

Read the full transcript of the program at this link.

Also see dated from 2001 the following report.

More South African Farmers Massacred.

The following is from the London Telegraph.

Countless white farmers have fled after a huge rise in farm attacks in the decade since the end of apartheid. As many as 1,700 white farmers have been killed, many with a brutality that has shocked the police investigating the cases. The farmers that remain are gripped by an epidemic of fear.

The above is from: Murders foreshadow South African land war.

The murder rate for SA farmers is 313 per 100,000 - the highest in the world. Source: http://www.interpol.com.

The fact of the matter is that one of the most dangerous jobs in the world in being a South African farmer.

The Boers are a people who have been under siege for much of their history in South Africa. Anthony C. LoBaido.

Their history is filled with hardships, tragedy & turmoil. Even before they arrived in the Cape & all the well known history of the VOC rule, British colonialism & clashes on the eastern frontier & all that followed such as the Great Trek & British genocide against Boer civilians in the concentration camps during the second Anglo-Boer War. Their French Huguenot, Belgian & German ancestors fled political & religious persecution in Europe. Their Dutch ancestors fought against Spain when the Netherlands was still under its control. Even many of the first Dutch & Frisian ancestors were forced to accompany the tyrannical Jan Van Riebeeck as they had been flooded out from their homes. Their fewer but significant Indian ancestors were slaves of the Dutch East India co. Remember: the Dutch East India Co. was even opposed to their permanent establishment -most could not afford the trip back even if some might have wanted to return- as they viewed them as a competitive rival in the region.

The following report is dated from 3 years ago.

 Coeztee's hopes for the future are threatened by the low-intensity warfare being waged against the Afrikaner people by radical blacks of the "Azania People's Organization" or AZAPO.

There are 40,000 white farmers in South Africa. Over 1,200 have been murdered since 1994 – the year the Marxist African National Congress, backed by the United Nations, European Union, Russia, China and the U.S. State Department, took power.

Add to this another 6,000 attacks and the white Boer Afrikaner farmer is easily the highest at-risk group for murder on Earth. The ANC has responded to this crisis by blaming whites and putting a ban on crime statistics because they scare off foreign investment.

"I won't hold my breath waiting for Oprah to call, or Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter or Al Sharpton," Coetzee told WorldNetDaily.

"It's politically correct to kill whites these days. What is so strange is the fact that we white farmers feed the black population. But look at Zimbabwe. The black leaders have engineered a famine against their own black citizens. It's as if it's all part of some horrible 'master plan.' Apparently, getting blacks to starve blacks to death doesn't really bother anyone in the Western world."

To the north, Zimbabwe's Marxist dictator Robert Mugabe has terrorized the nation's white farmers with state-sanctioned land seizures, torture, rape and murder.

The excerpt above is from a report entitiled: White Afrikaner farmers under siege.

In March 2003, the president announced in parliament that he was 'phasing out' this rural community's last effective military protection -- the 56,000-member military commando system which specializes in farm protection.

The above is from: Letter to the United Nations.

A South African expatriot named Malcolm Wren -who with his wife runs the Stop Boer Genocide.com web site- walked across England in 2003 in order to raise public awareness about the topic.

A number of ANC & PAC supporters still chant the hate slogan: " kill the boer kill the farmer." Read more about it here at this link.

Professor Moolman: a government appointed criminaologist has published several papers on farm murders warning that South Africa's justice system is falling apart & wrote an informative book concerning this genocide as well.

The following is an excerpt from: Killing of South Africa Farmers Intensifies by Anthony C. LoBaido.

The killing of white Afrikaner farmers in South Africa is intensifying, as members of the ethnic minority attempt to draw international attention to their plight.

According to a journalist covering the killings in South Africa, since the Marxist ANC took power in 1994, 1,118 farmers have been murdered in the nation.

"Where is President Bush on this issue? Where is Colin Powell? I know this is blacks killing whites, so that is politically correct. The media don't seem to care. And apologists like Andrew Young are saying, 'Killing whites is OK; it's part of reversing colonialism,'" said Henda Wolfardt, a South African farmer who lives near Ventersdorp with her husband and two sons.

The above is from: Killing of South Africa farmers intensifies.

Note: the article is from 2001. The current death toll of farmers has reached over 1 700 now.

There are many more reports concerning this growing genocide.

The Boer farmers have been reported as the most at risk group for being killed in the whole world. This fact speaks volumes that they are being targeted for genocide. This genocide against the Boer farmers is most ridiculous as the elimination of these farmers will lead to mass starvation which would affect all of South Africa's peoples.

Furthermore: this sardonic comment / question on our part has indicated that you do not do your homework. The increasing genocide against Boer farmers has been noted in the numerous reports which note how the assailants wait until the their victims come home & then brutally torture before killing them. This fact illustrates that these killings are hate crimes as well.

Ron7

Sorry if this hurts you, but I think in most people (inc. the academically advantaged) would say=

a)The Boers suffered genocide of sorts during the Boer Wars and especially around the time of Second Boer War

b)1000 Afrikaner farmers killed in 14 years does not constitute a Boer (and inaccurate to name them so) genocide

c)Where is the government or organising force behind this 'genocide'

Wh:y doesn't genocide-watch have its own article on wikipedia? Also is that page link to genocide watch (other links are interest groups) ...is that not a letter to genocide watch rather than official policy ? As the header tab on it says "Dear Dr" -max rspct 22:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to a: The Boers in fact did suffer a greater genocide during the second Anglo-Boer War. At least twenty seven thousand civilians (mainly children under the age of sixteen) died in the British concentration camps. I am glad & somewhat surprised that you have acknowledged this fact considering the anti-Boer tone of your rhetoric.

Response to b: First of all: more than 1 700 have been killed now & over 20 000 have been attacked in attacks where most of the time nothing at all is stolen. This should ring alarm bells. As to the term genocide: this is not something which is being used lightly. As I pointed out: this term is being used by none other than Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch. I even posted an alert which he issued himself & I posted a link to the television special in which he states that what is happening against the Boers constitutes a genocide. There is even a transcript posted to the very program in question to read it for yourself if for whatever reason you were unable to view the special at the link I posted. Furthermore: even if these attacks & killing were not organized, the result will still lead to genocide as the result would be the destruction of an ethnic / national group.

Response to c: From Shell House. It has been reported that many of the attacks have been coordinated from Shell House: the ANC headquarters. A few of those who have been arrested have even admitted this. Furthermore: the attacks are conducted with military style precision.

 "It is now South Africa's worst-kept secret that at least some of the farm attacks are coordinated from Shell House, the ANC's headquarters. One farm killer admitted to the police that he received his orders from Shell House. Another farm killer was given his gun to carry out an attack by a black, pro-ANC policeman. Rarely is anything stolen in these attacks. Snipers are used. The attacks are earmarked with military-style precision. When the Executive Outcomes mercenaries stopped all of the farm crime in the tiny town of Rhodes, the ANC made them pull out. Why? Executive Outcomes (EO) said they could stop all of the farm crime with only 2,000 soldiers spread over the entire country. The old commando structure had around 25-30,000 troops. Again, the same ANC which sent EO to destroy UNITA in Angola now says 'no' to the use of these same elite soldiers. The ANC wants the farm killings to continue. What hypocrisy. But no one has the guts to call the ANC's bluff on this." Perion Rayford.

Note: Perion Rayford is a pseudonym used by Anthony C. LoBaido in order to protect the researcher's identity: a top Cape Town-based researcher for the Democratic Alliance: formerly the Progressive Party: the White anti-aparhteid political party which was represented in parliament.

<ul>

Rayford also said Mbeki relies on controlling the mostly foreign-owned media of South Africa, the educational system and the nation's economic policy to keep a huge, disenfranchised mass of people ready for a war against the whites if and when that sad day should come. (According to this South African rumor, during "Operation White Clean Up" all of the nation's whites will be killed on the night of Nelson Mandela's funeral.)

< snip. >

Prominent British journalist Christopher Hitchens said Nelson Mandela was being "used as a fig leaf for an increasingly repressive regime." </ul>

From: Marxists' destroy 'New South Africa'.

<ul> South African President Thabo Mbeki has called the farm murders of whites "the final stage of the revolution." </ul>

From: Kill the Boer, kill the farmer'.

"<ul> Also is that page link to genocide watch (other links are interest groups) -max rspct </ul>"

No. The others are mainly links to news reports documenting the situation.

<ul> ...is that not a letter to genocide watch rather than official policy ? As the header tab on it says "Dear Dr". -max rspct </ul>

The article in question was authored by Gregory Stanton. The head of Genocide Watch. The article is also copyrighted by Genocide Watch. Furthermore the following is found at the end of the page in question.

<ul> Genocide Watch calls attention to this potential threat of destruction of an ethnic group, which has reached at least level four, Organization, and probably level five, Polarization, in Genocide Watch’s stages of the genocidal process. We call upon South African government and civil society, especially human rights, legal, and religious groups, to resolutely and vocally oppose those who advocate hatred against Boer farmers. Those who have committed these murders must be brought to justice. </ul>

The following is a transcript of a segment of what Gregory Stanton said in the Carte Blanche television program. Once you've finished reading it, you will know why this is being referred to as a genocide.

Read the full transcript of this program at this link.

<ul> Dr Gregory H. Stanton (Genocide Watch): “It seems to me a very troubling statistic that the murder rate of the farmers, the Boer farmers, is about four times as high as is for the rest of the population”

Dr. Stanton is a retired American professor of law who heads Genocide Watch, the organisation that co-ordinates the international campaign to end genocide.

We met him in Berlin where he was attending a conference in remembrance of the Holocaust.

He believes that, apart from crime, there's also another motive.

Gregory: “There's a motive of hatred, that these are hate crimes, that people are tortured, that they're murdered in ways that are de-humanising.”

Not only does Stanton believe farm murders are hate crimes, but he's also recently warned the world that the white farmers in South Africa could be facing genocide. Twenty years ago he witnessed the horrors of the Cambodian genocide.

Gregory: “I realised, I think, from that point forward that I would spend the rest of my life working to stop genocide and to bring those who committed it to justice.”

Years later, that's exactly what he did. He was the person responsible for drafting the UN resolutions that created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Stanton has identified eight stages of genocide by comparing the history of genocides in the 20th century. He describes it as a process, rather than an act that could take many years to be effected.

Gregory: “The third stage is really where you begin the downward spiral into genocide and that is the stage of de-humanisation. It is where you treat the other people as though they're less than human.”

A scene like this, he says, should have the alarm bells ringing.

This farmer was ambushed at his farm gate, shot in the back and left to die. His vehicle was burnt out and his body displayed with the lights and number plates.

Gregory: “These '''are clearly hate crimes. It's such a symbolic expression of de-humanisation. They're so treating him like a thing.”'''

It's often thought that a whole group needs to be killed before it's defined as genocide, but that's not the case.

Stanton says the more than one thousand four hundred farmers killed in South Africa could be classified under the Genocide Convention.

Gregory: “Even if it's a few hundred individuals who have been targeted, that is an act of genocide under the convention.”

However, Stanton warns that South Africa has already slipped into the fifth stage of the process, or what he refers to as polarisation.

Gregory: “Extremists attempt to drive out the centre, they attempt to divide the world into just two camps; into us and them.”

And from there on, he says, it's a small step to the seventh stage when the actual genocide takes place and where the word genocide is used.

Gregory: “People who commit this crime often think amazingly enough that they're purifying their society in some way or another, you know - they're getting rid of insects or some kind of less than human form of life.”

A civil war is potentially more likely, says Moolman.

Prof Neels Moolman: “I don't think we are there yet, but I think that we are speeding to that point very fast if the radicals are not controlled properly.”

Gregory: “They will say that the genocide was really just a civil war as though a civil war somehow was an opposite of genocide when in fact many genocides occurred during civil wars.” </ul>

The above excerpt is from the Carte Blanche television program. I am beginning to suspect that you did not even view the program at the link I provided nor even have read the transcript which was provided as well.

Since if you had, you would have known that Gregory Stanton has publicly stated that the attacks & murders of Boer farmers constitutes a genocide under the Genocide Convention.

I notice that you have gone from stating that the source of Genocide Watch's alert was merely am "agricultural department of a South African banck" to now atempting to deny the fact that Genocide Watch has issued & raised the alert of genocide against the Boer farmers.

Furthermore: none of what you wrote "hurts" myself in the least as I am not a Boer farmer, but your attitude of indifference & your attempts at downplaying & denying the facts before you concerning the genocide will most certainly continue to hurt & ultimately eradicate the Boer farmers from existence. This is otherwise known as genocide.

People seem to be fond of saying "never again", yet when they are given the chance to back up their utterances with concrete action at preventing genocide, they seem to like to ignore it (as was the case with Rwanda) or downplay it (as was the case in Yugoslavia & as you are currently doing with the Boers) or simply deny it as some did with East Timor.

Now considering that you can no longer claim ignorance: you can either stand with the educated & informed by opposing the genocide or you can stand with the haters & deniers.

The Wikipedia article to Genocide that you posted points out exactly what is transpiring against the Boer farmers.

<ul> the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:" Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; </ul>

<ul> forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. </ul>

On an interesting note: During the aftermath of the second Anglo-Boer War many Boers were destitute & even some children were orphaned. A significant number of Boer children were adopted by English speakers, not just wealthy Afrikaner families from outside the Republics. Those children who adopted English names & language have been reported as "forever lost to the Boer nation". Some English speakers hence are in fact be from Boer heritage. It has been estimated that the total number present day Afrikaners could have been from five million to seven million -as opposed to the current 3 million- had not such a significant number of Boers died in the concentration camps or were adopted by English speakers.

<ul> Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. </ul>

Virtually all the above requirements are being met. There is indeed a coordinated plan of attack against the vulnerable Boer farmers with the aim of annihilating the group itself. The disintegration of the political & social institutions are just beginning, but the disintegration of culture, language & national feelings of the Boers are being implemented with the increasing eradication of the number of Afrikaans language educational institutions & the constant government actions against Boer cultural radio stations. In fact the cultural genocide against the Boers initially began with their partial physical genocide -about 15 % of the republican Boer population- in the British created concentration camps & the conclusion of the Anglo-Boer War & also when wealthy Afrikaner & Britons began to impose their culture & hegemony in the defeated Boer Republics.

<ul> Lemkin's original genocide definition was narrow, as it addressed only crimes against "national groups" rather than "groups" in general. Interestingly, it was broad at the same time as it included not only physical genocide, but also acts aimed at destroying the culture and livelihood of the group. </ul>

Destroying the farming community would certainly qualify as destroying the culture & livelihood of the Boer group.

Furthermore: there were about 53 000 Boer farmers in 1991. Now there are only about less than 35 000.

The statisitcs speak for themselves. The Boer farmers have been reported as the most at risk group for being killed in the world. Continuing to downplay the significance of this escalating genocide does not deter from the realities of it nor does it detract from the prominent anti genocide activists who have spoken out against the situation.

Ron7

I suspect that the elements within the rich white minority has killed more since 1991 >[ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2440463.stm] -max rspct 22:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I just had to laugh when I saw you post this link. Do you have even a shred of evidence to back up your slanderous assertion that elements within the so called rich White minority (which is overwhelmingly English speaking) has killed more since 1991? Somehow I doubt it! Unless you want to include those White mercenaries in Executive Outcomes who in fact kill on behalf of the ANC run government.

The so called White minority might be 60 % Afrikaans, but around 400 000 to 500 000 Afrikaners are poor which is about 15 % of the local RSA Afrikaner population. The rich folks in the White minority are overwhelmingly English speakers (remember the influx during the discovery of gold) & are for the most part not aligned with Afrikaners particularly the poorer segments of the Boer population of which a radical portion is now being blamed for the so called Boeremag or Farmers' Force.

The fact that you attempt to link the radical government linked Boeremag -which represents the less affluent Boer interests- to the rich White segment (which is English speaking & generally pro ANC) serves to illustrate your ignorance on the whole topic.

Now to address your hilarious link. The Boeremag -which was responsible for killing only one person by shrapnel- has been exposed & is suspected of being nothing more than a government front group. For one thing the so-called "leader" of the plot Tom Vorster, worked for the CIA and that his wife was a police informant. This group has all the hallmarks of a false flag operation directed by the South African government.

Furthermore the article you cite even mentions this telling fact.

"<ul> It certainly does not represent the majority of Afrikaners... but a residue within the South African National Defence Force [SANDF] and the South African Police Service,' he said. </ul>"

Not only does this movement not represent the majority of Afrikaners -what movement or political party ever did?- but is a residue within the SANDF & the SAP. Think about it. Both of these groups are connected to the State. As anyone who knows anything about violent anti-regime groups with connections to the very State that they serve: these groups' actions against the State only serve the interests of the State itself. Certainly not the Boer comunities that they are claiming to represent.

<ul>

Was the entire "Boeremag coup" pre-programmed by security agents ?

Henk van Zyl, one of the 22 co-accused -- and only the third of 260 state witnesses to testify in the 10th month of the Pretoria "treason trial" -- testified Friday that the so-called "leader" of the plot Tom Vorster, worked for the CIA and that his wife was a police informant..

This latest testimony makes one wonder about what is really going on in this increasingly odd "treason trial".

Not only is it wending its way at an excruciatingly slow pace through the law courts-- which means that 14 of the 22 arrested, innocent Afrikaners are facing having to spend the next 22 years in Pretoria Central prison with convicted criminals -- but now it seems that at least two of the first three witnesses who testified thus far show evidence of extensive tampering with the very existence of this so-called "rightwing terror group."

The first witness has already admitted that he was a paid informer for the State who had even coined the name for the organisation and had even set off explosive charges and lured many of the present trialists into pre-arranged, tape-recorded meetings.

 * The man was, in other words, a paid government agent provocateur.

 * How believable and reliable can such a witness be?

but now here's the third of 260 witnesses -- one of the co-accused, a man reportedly so ill-treated during his incarceration that he is more than terrified of being returned to prison -- and who has now also admitted that "heavy pressure" was being placed on him "by the State prosecutors" to "make the State's case look convincing."

claiming that their background security check of Tom Vorster had unearthed the unsavoury information that Tom Vorster was actually a military intelligence expert who had had close ties with the American foreign security organ, the CIA, and that Vorster's wife had been a state "informant"...
 * And now this man claims that he had overheard the State prosecution

now being shunned by his fellow trialists -- thus discord and distrust is being constantly sown and which is interfering with these people's rights to a fair trial.
 * Tom Vorster meanwhile, who denied that he was ever their leader, is

http://www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/crime1justice/0,2172,86169,00.html

Are all these "Boeremag coup" claims just another pre-arranged scam, wholly created to boost the (international) standing of SA president Thabo Mbeki by murky security operatives -- similar to the "coup" claims also being bandied about against 87 other South Africans who are still incarcerated in Zimbabwe and Equatorial Africa? </ul>

The above can be found at this link.

Well: it looks like that once again the State up to its old tricks. Furthermore: anyone who has spent anytime researching historical events will know that it is the State which is responsible the most for the killing of peoples & repression.

Ron7

 * Sorry, I disagree. Most of your sources are biased, inaccurate and based on the word of a few pro-afrikaners (i don't care what Hitchens says either). You didn't answer b) at all (Boers belong to a particular period of SA history and you are really talking about Afrikaners. There is no 'marxist' conspiracy and the ANC is definatly not Marxist. Please DO NOT fill my talk page with this right-wing garbage! If you need to deluge someone with 'reports' or whatever.. keep it to your own talkpage yeh? I have already told you once. -max rspct 11:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how Genocide Watch is a "biased" source. Unless you mean biased against genocide. I am certainly willing to concede that the people who write for World Net Daily.com are biased in a slight neo conservative Christian fundamentalist manner, but anti genocide personalities like Gregory Stanton & anti-apartheid journalists like Adriana Stuijt & Anthony C LoBaido & CBS reporters like Ed Bradley can hardly be accused of this sort of bias. Funny how you never hold your biased sources up to the same standard. The BBC can hardly be considered a fair source, especially when noting the skewed / anti-Boer & ignorant manner in which they tend to write. The onus is on you to demonstrate what sources you deem to be "biased" & to show why you think they are. Just claiming a source is supposedly biased simply does not cut it. I want to see legitimate documentation.

"<ul> based on the word of a few pro-afrikaners </ul>"

The Afrikaners are certainly not very pro Boer & the un-reconstructed Boers are not very pro Afrikaner. As you might recall if you have done your history: the Afrikaners have been quite hostile to the Boers, particularly when they derided the Great Trek. The Cape Dutch had little affinity for their rustic trekking Boer cousins whom they regarded as barbarians. The Boers split with the group who would later coin & perpetuate the Afrikaner designation -of which they the Cape Dutch controlled- since before the 1700s when they began trekking inland away from VOC rule. The Boers of Voortrekker descent split once & for all (at least until the 1930s) with the Afrikaners over the issue of British colonialism. The Boers of the Republics were suspicious of the Afrikaners -whom they felt were too pro British- & did not want many to emigrate to their republics. The Afrikaners later absorbed a number of Boers due to the fact that many Boers were left destitute after the Anglo-Boer War. Note: it was called the Anglo-Boer War & not the Anglo-Afrikaner War as the British were at war with the Boers & were in fact already on friendly relations with the Afrikaners of the Cape. Look it up. The whole notion of pro Afrikaner flies in the face of the Boer people whom are a separate cultural group from that of the Afrikaner which is Cape based & which has played a role in the cultural genocide of the Boer people ever since the conclusion of the Anglo-Boer War.

"<ul> i don't care what Hitchens says either </ul>"

Though. I do not care that you do not care. Figures that would do not like an anti right wing author. So you do not like so called right wing (tepid) authors & you do not like tepid left wing ones either. I have my disagreements with Hitchens as well (as he is far too much a Bush apologist), but I recognize that he is still a respected anti-authoritarian author & pundit.

<ul> Boers belong to a particular period of SA history and you are really talking about Afrikaners. </ul>

Wrong. Absolutely incorrect. The Boers did not just vanish after 1900 when their Republics were defeated & fell under the rule of the Cape based Afrikaner who were originally known as the Cape Dutch. The Cape Dutch began to to call themselves Afrikaners beginning in 1875 after Reverend S J Du Toit & Gideon Malherbe of the Western Cape started an Afrikaans language movement while most Boers referred (& some still do) their language as "die taal". Remember: the Afrikaners are overwhelmingly of Cape Dutch descent ie: those whose ancestors remained in the Western Cape & did not trek eastwards. The Boers only account for about 33 % of the total White Afrikaner population. Man alive, you really need to do some basic history! The Voortrekkers only represented about one third of the total White population at the Cape. There were some Trekboers or border farmers who remained in the eastern Cape, but the majority of White Afrikaans speakers in the Cape were & are the ones in the Western Cape who were known as the Cape Dutch. This is why the Afrikaner designation has been Cape based, because the White Cape Afrikaans speakers greatly outnumber(ed) the Boers of Voortrekker descent. The Boers of Trekboer & Voortrekker descent speak a dialect which is classified as Eastern Border Afrikaans while the inhabitants of the Western Cape speak & spoke a dialect of West Cape Afrikaans. They speak different dialects be cause they are fundamentally different cultural groups. When the Boers were trekking inland, the Cape Dutch were ridiculing them & remained loyal to the colonial powers. This is on the record. The Griquas just for the record speak a dialect of Orange River Afrikaans. Numerous but not all Boers also began to refer to themselves as Afrikaners from 1933 onwards due in part to the political rhetoric as enunciated by a Cape Dutch turned Afrikaner politician named D F Malan who was elected (without recieving a majority of the popular vote) on an Apartheid platform. Most of those who formulated the Apartheid laws were in fact from the Western Cape & in particular were from Stellenbosch. The actual architect of Grand Apartheid was in fact from Holland.

<ul> 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. </ul>

From: [http://www.nc.essortment.com/historyafrikaan_rqrs.htm the Afrikaans language in South Africa.]

The Boers have been outnumbered ever since they were forced to make peace with the British & become subjugated to the British created macro state of South Africa which was created in 1910 & which placed an Afrikaner & Briton elite in charge. While a number of Boers did indeed join the emerging Afrikaner political designation, a great many remained self identified Boers -even to the point where some lead a rebellion in 1914 to restore the Boer Republics. It was only with the strong pro republic northern Boer vote in 1960 which made South Africa a republic in 1961 as the Cape Afrikaners were more evenly divided. Look it up.

Just because many Boers were conditioned into accepting their fate within the artificial macro state of South Africa that the British created & that the Afrikaner (ie: Cape Dutch) led, does not mean that they all just abondoned their identity. The Boers are & always have been -due to Western Cape demographics- just a faction of the total Afrikaner population.

There have been & still are a great many people who call themselves Boers & who were never co-opted or assimilated into the Cape based Afrikaner designation. Look it up. These un-reconstructed Boers detest being called Afrikaners & are opposed to everything that they stand for. The Afrikaner tends to be neo colonial (as the Cape Dutch were) while the Boer tends to be independent & republican. The Afrikaner has tried to redefine the Boer out of existence & rewrite history but they are still here & they have been referring to themselves as Boers all through the rise of the manufactured Afrikaner designation.

"<ul> The Boers, as they call themselves, are arriving quite legally, in the wake of a agreement between the Mozambican and South African governments. BBC News. </ul>"

<ul>

There is no 'marxist' conspiracy and the ANC is definatly not Marxist. </ul>

Good grief! Well you can deny it all you want but the fact of the matter is that the ANC is closely aligned with the South African Communist Party which is Marxist in its orientation. In fact the governing coalition of the Republic of South Africa is one of ANC / SACP & COSATU. Once again: look it up. Furthermore: the current President is a former card carrying member of the SACP. In fact there are many ANC memebers who are also members of the SACP. This is not right wing garbage (as you dismissively asseert) but verifiable & open fact! Also: I agree there is not a Marxist conspiracy per se as much as there is a Globalist agenda out of London (which created the macro state of South Africa in the first place) which is the source of the ANC apparatus & its policies.

<ul> Please DO NOT fill my talk page with this right-wing garbage! </ul>

I fail to see what is so right wing about noting basic undeniable facts. Just because World Net Daily might be considered on the right: it does not change the relevancy of the information relating to the verifiable genocide. At any rate: all of the other sources are certainly not right wing. Unless you want to start calling CBS News / Genocide Watch / Censorbugbear / the London Telegraph & Interpol " right wing" sources. Go on I dare you, let's see just how nutty you can get in your bizarre & irrational hatred of the Boers. Furthermore: sorry to disappoint you: but there is basically no difference between the right wing & the left wing as they are phantom ideologies which are funded by the same high finance multi national sources which strive for the same Statist brass ring goal.

<ul> If you need to deluge someone with 'reports' or whatever </ul>

Now listen here pal: it was you who came dropping in here with your offensive Boer genocide denial garbage! Did you expect that your anti Boer hatred would just be ignored? I wonder if you are in the habit of denying other genocides. Do you also bother people who point out the Armenian Genocide of 1915 in Turkey? Do you also think that all those sources citing it are just " right wing" or "left wing" or what? Do you also think that the Armenian Genocide was "really not a genocide" either? I am curious, just how far in denial are you of basic accepted facts. I only initially dropped in on your talk page due to the fact that you felt the need to post POV speculation on a Wikipedia page. I posted the facts in order to enlighten you, but you arrogantly responded with a terse unsubstantiated nonsensical accusation. While never pointing out what you supposedly found "apologist".

From my perspective: you are posting apologist crap when you ridiculously claim that the Afrikaners & Boers are somehow the same people despite the fact that they have different histories due to the trekking separation which occurred as early as the 1690s & throughout the 1700s which created distinct cultures among the White Afrikaans speakers. Look it up. Those are the verifiable facts.

Read the following from a reputable source & be enlightened.

<ul>

IN RECENT YEARS, historians have commented that Afrikaners were far from being one people. It is misleading, they say, to speak of ‘the Afrikaner’ or the ‘volk’ as if white, Afrikaans-speaking people were one, uniform mass. For at least 150 years, Dutch-speaking South Africans were divided, scattered and unaware of national unity. It was only when a systematic effort was made that national consciousness became widespread. In the nineteenth century, for example, settled Boers and townspeople in the Western Cape, differed greatly from the Voortrekkers (who themselves were not a united movement — many parties had split up to trek in different directions). Even in the Boer republics there were divisions between rich and poor, landowners and bywoners.

< continuation. >

Then, with the discovery of diamonds in Kimberley and gold on the Rand, the struggle for South Africa’s mineral wealth began. Gold and Workers described the causes of the ‘Second War of Independence’, the Anglo-Boer War. Its outcome was that the British, and the English-speaking mine owners, were to control the growing capitalist economy on the Rand.

'''But not all Afrikaners shared the same history. In the Cape, many were urban professionals, while even the farmers had more in common with Cape English settlers than with the children and grandchildren of the trekkers who had left so many years earlier.'''

Afrikaner nationalism began to take off after two wars of independence against the British in the Transvaal. During the second war (the Anglo-Boer War) the British ‘scorched earth’ policy —burning down Boer farmhouses to prevent them from providing shelter for Boer soldiers — and the herding of Boer women and children into overcrowded and unhygienic concentration camps, where thousands of children died, left deep scars in Boer consciousness for many years. </ul>

From: Afrikaner Nationalism Captures the State.

The above is from a reputable historical source. Go on: I dare you to attempt to label it " right wing" or tar it with some other ridiculous & mendacious accusation. Just be prepared to back up your attack with at least a shred of documentation.

"<ul> keep it to your own talkpage yeh? I have already told you once. </ul>"

Is that a threat? Considering your hostile & hate filled attitude: I do not think that you are fit to be here. Who knows how many other pages you have edited with this hate filled agenda you demonstrate.

Just so you know: your denials of Boer genocide can be construed as hate speech & your erroneous assertions that the Afrikaners & Boers are somehow the "same" can not only be seen as ignorant of history but also be considered as belligerent & offensive to the un-reconstructed Boers. I dare you to go to the North West province (for example) & call the Boers there Afrikaners. Don't say I didn't warn you. Go on: put your actions where your rhetoric is & insult them to their face instead of here. No one would call an Acadian a French Canadian -a la Quebecois- so why would one call a Boer an Afrikaner.

Furthermore: the onus is on you to demonstrate the validity of the thesis of your arguments & assertions. I have backed up my observations & points with verifiable documentation from the Boer Genocide to the historical & cultural difference between the Afrikaner & the Boer. The onus is on you to explain before the whole word how the Boer of Voortrekker descent -who are only about & not much more than 33 % of the Afrikaner designation- are somehow the same as the Afrikaner when the Cape based Afrikaans speaking people drove that whole designation.

Ron7

While a few of the sources I used to demonstrate my point were of a neo conservative Christian persuasion -ie: World Net Daily.com- the fact of the matter is that all of the other sources: CBS News, the London Telegraph, Censorbugbear & Genocide Watch can not be considered biased as such. Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch has asserted that the attacks & killing of Boer farmers is a genocide - not just the others. In fact the others have simply taken his lead. Stanton states the Boer killings & attacks is a genocide under the Genocide Convention.

The Boers do not simply belong to a period of Southern African (South Africa did not exist before 1910) history but to the modern era as well as a significant number have continued to exist & still exist to this very day as Boers. There have been people self identifying as Boers all through the 20th century & still today even in cities.

I find it most surreal how you claim to disdain " right wing" sources -yet you perpetuate the right wing notion that the all of the Boers are all Afrikaners. Remember: it was elements on the right which promoted the unification of the White Afrikaans speakers by promoting the term Afrikaner which was by applied to all the White (& later Coloured) Afrikaans speakers.

The very macro state of South Africa itself which you seemingly defend was created by right wing British imperial forces & the South Africa Act which was established in 1909 & created a single centralized administration over all of the regions peoples & nations which was the political cornerstone of Apartheid after the British created pass laws (which were based on the internal passport system of Russia) has not been repealed.

The Boers were mainly an agrarian & anti macro Capitalist people. The same can not be said of the people who were from the Western Cape & who were in the driver's seat of the Afrikaner designation. While the term Afrikaner was sporadically used since 1707 -beginning with the French Huguenots were viewed themselves as "African" after fleeing Europe as refugees & arriving at the Cape- the fact of the matter is that it was not widely used until after the Anglo-Boer War when the estranged Western Cape cousins of the republican Boers began to usurp their identity as a means of creating a political device in order to overwhelm the English speakers in the political realm as a unified force as the total White Afrikaans population was greater than the total White English speaking population.

The Broederbond (the once secret society of Afrikaans nationalist promoters) & the National Party were the main political proponents of the Afrikaner designation which aimed at unifying the disparate White Afrikaans communities which were mainly divided between the formerly known Cape Dutch of the Western Cape & the Boer of trekker descent.

When Afrikaner nationalists attempted to change the national flag (1927 - 1994 compromise flag) of South Africa during the 1960s: they wanted "a clean flag" that not only did not have the hated British flag in the design but also one that did not have the Boer Republic flags of the Transvaal Republic & the Orange Free State. The Afrikaners were almost as intent on erradicating Boer culture as the British were & current neo colonial rulers are. Let's make no mistake about it: the current rulers are just as neo colonial as the old regimes were as they are in a surrogate colonial role administrating an artificial British created colonial construct which only benifits the ruling elites. States -particulary macro States tend to do so due to their natural inertia & the inherent monopolistic political hegemony their administrations have over the region.

Ron7 17:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Look here mate
Please stop filling my talk page with POV and pro-apartheid/afrikkaner propaganda. You obviously feel strongly about them and feel frustrated. If you have SOLID evidence (e.g Cite sources) that this IS a front group for what u see as a communist/anc conspiracy please  put in on the article or preferably it's talkpage. -max rspct 19:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No sir, you look here. I do not support Apartheid & stating such is a pure ad hominem attack & entirely wrong! I even called the Apartheidists on their use of non White labour in your talk page so you can not even attempt to feign otherwise on this matter. Nor do I support the Afrikaner per se as they have been instrumental in repressiing the Boers in the past as well. If you had bothered to read what I post to you would have known all this, but it is clear that you do not read what I write or are distortiing for reasons I just do not understand. The Boers are not Afrikaners & you can not even spell the name right which shows your ignorance on the whole issue. Now let's get something straight here: it was you who erroneously asserted that Orania was "a revival of Apartheid" when it is to date nothing of the sort. Pure POV! on your part. It was you who asserted the right wing garbage that the Boers are all Afrikaners despite the historical record & culutural reality stating otherwise. It was you who asserted that a questionable group which probably does not even exist was "a White supremacist" group when in reality if the group does exist it is clearly a Boer separatist group.

Now you can continue to complain when I call you on your erroneous assertions & attempt to correct them as a matter of public record, but it was still you who intitially made the erroneous assertions.

Furthermore I have noticed that you have annoyed others here with your constant POV assertions. I just had to laugh when I saw you attempting to assert the the word "terrorist" does not belong in the 911 article yet you assert that a phantom group is "supremacist" when the only thing that can be fairly determined is that the supposed group is a militant Boer separatist group.

Well you seem to like to complain when I attempt to engage & set the record straight when I see you asserting POV nonsense as if what you write was holy writ & can never be questioned. Well you better come back down to Earth & realize that you are not the holy oracle of truth & wisdom you position yourself as being. When you write erroneous un-substantiaed & slanted nonsense -it is my right to set the record straight particularly when I might happen to know a hell of a lot more than you do concerning given topics.

Ron7

May I remind you - "Sometimes, historians try to discern the reasons why such or such decision was taken, or the real intents of such or such leader. While there may be some material clues supporting such claims, in general, they should be considered as speculation, not as fact." - From Reliable sources -max rspct 19:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I would suggest you start applying this when you write or edit articles in the future, it would have prevented my ever having to attempt to set the record straight in your talk page which for reasons I do not understand causes you to be outraged. Which is ridiculous when considering that it is you who has made erroneous assertions & passed speculation of as fact.

Ron7

Orania and it's purpose
What about this then: "Today it has been fixed up and between 500 and 600 white Afrikaners, including around 100 children, live in Orania under the slogan of "selfwerksaamheid" (self-reliance). Black or coloured (mixed-race) people are not allowed to live or work here" - Source: and another source from BBC, again confirming the whites-only policy  - max rspct 20:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The True Purpose of Orania.
What you fail to realize is that this in itself is not "a revival of Apartheid" as Apartheid was an official State sanctioned set of public legislation & centralized laws which created internal discrimination amongst local established national & ethnic groups while the Oranians on the other hand are working to avoid this state of affairs by purposely living in a sparsely inhabited region where only they will constitute the demos. Since Orania is owned by a private company any policy that the private company chooses to have can not ever be considered "a revival of Apartheid" since a private company has the right to decide who their shareholders are & is within its discretion to decide such matters just as a proprietor of any property has the right to choose its policies & associations.

Explain how the mere existence of non-Afrikaaners living in the community endangers the project. Are the non-Afrikaaners (the blacks) lazier? Are they less capable of hard work? A company cannot engage in policy which is contrary to the constitutional rights of the inhabitents of the country. The company cannot permit discrimination if discrimination is illega. Just like the company cannot harbor fugitives since the harboring of fugitives is against the law. A proprietor's rights to choose is limited to the legality of those choices. --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This premise is wrong because private companies are allowed to permit discrimination all the time. If you enter a bar & do not buy a drink the bar can discriminate against you & throw you out. The Boy Scouts can refuse to admit girls. A Black identity group can discriminate against White applicants & vise versa.

The existence of non Afrikaans people threatens the project by viture of the fact that they will bring their own culture & language thereby compromising the goal of creating an Afrikaner enclave.

Furthermore the entire Orania project is in line with article 235 of the current South African Constitution.

Ron7 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 * When "only" they constitute the demographics, then they are RECREATING apartheid. A private company does not have the right to exclude people based on race or ethnicity, thats a form of racism and apartheid. Privatizing racism is still racism! It's still morally wrong. You don't buy off morals and values and ethics. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the sort of horizontal Apartheid which existed in South Africa. Furthermore: a private company does have the right to decide who their clientele can be. Orania can only be considered a form of vertical Apartheid -the sort of Apartheid which always eluded the old South Africa- but it is certainly not a form of horizontal Apartheid as the participants have pledged to do all of their own labour. The goal of the laws barring other races & cultures -even those who are White- is to make sure that horizontal Apartheid does not re-occur.

Ron7 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole point behind Orania restricting non Afrikaans peoples from living or working there ''' is precisely to avoid the very sort of Apartheid that you claim they are attempting to revive. ''' Do you not realize this? Orania is committed to doing all of their own labour & those that run it do not want to compromise these principles or allow non Afrikaans peoples to permanently live there as it would threaten the integrity of the project. This is not about race as English speakers are also not encouraged to live there either. What you conveniently forget is that if they allowed non Afrikaans people to live there, the newcomers would bring their language & culture to the region thereby compromizing the goal of creating an Afrikaans cultural & linguistic enclave.

Well, I like your George Bush republican party reasoning. To solve a problem you actually have to create the same environement that creates the problem. BY restricting people, that in itself is the Apartheid. There is no reason that blacks, and others cannot just live among them... lol... speaking Afrikaans if you wish. Hilarious. The mere presence of other people threaten the cultural integrity of someone. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It would threaten the cultural integrity of the Oranians because the other groups would bring their language & culture to the region thereby compromizing the goal of creating an Afrikaans enclave. If people of different cultures have the right to live there then they would also have the right to bring their language & cultures thereby Balkanizing the region & disrupting the goal of creating an Afrikaans enclave. Furthermore: when Britain created the Bantustans of Lesotho / Swaziland & Botswana: no one claimed that it was Apartheid despite the fact that they were reserved for the Sotho / Swazi & Tswana populations of the regions.

Ron7 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural integrity is not threatened by the existence of people of a different culture. The goal of creating an Afrikaans enclave for it's own sake is a circular argument. The creation of Lesotho and Swaziland (as all the colonization of Africa) was wrong, whether or not it was "Apartheid" in label or not. ALL of the colonization of Africa was wrong and should have never been done. The "word" Apartheid is not as significant as the concept of colonization, racism, and white supremacy. --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The cultural integrity of a people can certainly be threatened when they are all forced into a single state. This is one of the main reasons why states are wrong. Colonization was wrong: it even implemented artifical states onto a region which was largely devoid of the type of macro states the European colonial powers created.

Ron7 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember: Orania is not a State. In fact it is the wave of the future in many ways as this sort of private sector enterprise will likely one day replace the public sector & the apparatus of the State as news reports in the past have suggested. The right of freedom of association is a recognized right of individuals & private companies & asserting that any policy enacted by such is somehow a revival of Apartheid -which has the coercive power of the State- is an intellectually dishonest statement.

So basically we are reviving the Dutch East India company and the VOC only for the 21st century. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The VOC is simply the Dutch initials for the Dutch EAst Indian Co. No. Orania is not a revivial of such as the VOC was backed by a state & by very polticially connected & powerful people while Orania on the other hand operates on a tight budget & is only supported by those few who either live there or contribute to it. Furthermore Orania is even opposed by very powerful people & certainly does not have anywhere near the support of a VOC like giant.

It is interesting to note that the VOC itself was in fact oppossed to the creation of a distinct homegrown White community at the Cape in the first place (what did they think was going to happen to all those farmers they freed from VOC service?) Interesting how your position concerning the Oranians mirrors the sentiments of the VOC towards the nacsent Boerevolk (pronounced akin to Boorafolk) or Boer nation.

Furthermore: the successors of the VOC are the main supporters of the macro South African state as composed by the British. The transnational companies -of which the VOC was among the first- tend to support macro states & not irredentist or secessionist or separatist elements within the macro states. Furthermore the main goal of the VOC & other like Cos was trade not the fostering of creating self sustaining communities.

Ron7 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I just can not figure you out. In one breath you lambaste the so called "rich white minority" -which is in fact English speaking not Afrikaans- accusing them of killing more people than the numbers of farm killing victims without a shred of evidence, yet when a small group of Boers & Afrikaners take proper measures to attain greater self determination through the  peaceful  settlement of a sparsely populated region of scorching desert: you accuse them of reviving Apartheid practices.

Oh please, firstly it hasn't been peaceful, as there have been Volkstaaters making insurrections to achieve the goal. Second the George-Bush logic you used above creates the problem. I really don't care how the "wave of the future" goes. There is no way a white-only "settlement" is going to be permitted in the middle of South Africa. Forget it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The inhabitants of Orania have indeed been peaceful. This is the main reason as to why the whole project even exists. The only people who have been allegedly violent have been those who were affiliated with the goal of resurrecting the various Boer Republics by force which have largely turned out to be government connected operations analogous to the American government's attempted & declassified Operation Northwoods.

Ron7 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No Ron, the fact is, the Whites themselves are the initiators of this. Do you spend all of your time blaming others and finding ways to re-explain in prim-and-proper ways the mistakes of white supremacists? Oh and by the way, the "government" isn't just exclusively BLack. So let us not use "government" as a synonym for "black". --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief the assumptions you make are astounding! First of all I have never said that the government is synonymous with Black but it is run by a Xhosa elite who are less numerous than the Zulus who are increasingly shut out of government.

The so called White people are not the initiators of the alleged violence. Just look it up & so a search. The Boeremag group has been exposed as a false flag operation & a government front in line with the scenarios of the Grant Bristow Affair / Operation Gladio & Operation Noorthwoods. The leader of the group is a one Tom Vorster who is a government informant & closely associated with the South African government & has known connections to the CIA. These are confirmed facts. Do you spend all of your time blaming White people & the Boers in particular for every thing that occurs?

The fact of the matter is that it is even White Afrikaans speakers with the government who are brutally treating the accused Boer members of the alleged Boeremag group. Do you even know about this? There are still many Afrikaners who are playing the same Statist game only now they are more overtly oppressing & in this case brutalizing their Boer cousins.

Ron7 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole aim of Orania is to create an Afrikaans population consolidation as a result of another Great Trek which in itself would prevent the revival of Apartheid practices as there would exist a natural majority demographic Afrikaans population center.

Ron7

 * Ron that's a stupid line of reasoning. So, create a majority-minority status by pre-emptively having all people of the minority move to one regon. Then seceede from the country. THIS is going to "prevent the revival" of Apartheid practices... and this prevention is thus caused by the existence of a natural majority of Afrikaans. Gee did it ever cross your mind that Apartheid could be prevented simply by the refusal of Whites to engage in that kind of philosophy? Nazism could be prevented by the consolidation of Nazi extremists in one section of Germany where they would form the majority and also create their own enclave? Come on Ron. --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I read an article on an esteemd anti-state liberatian site which stated virtually this. The author pointed out as part of making the case against macro states (which is what Germany was after 1871) that Hitler would certainly have been much less of a threat if he would only have ever been the governor of Bavaria. It was the fact that he controlled the entire macro state of Germany which made him such a threat as he had at his disposal all of its means & power.

Similarly if those who wish to have a racially exclusive enclave (which is disputed concerning Orania as there are no racially exclusive laws only a company policy) would not be as much of a threat as they could be & were when the were in control of the entire macro state. This is just common sense. What you seem to forget is that the entire Orania project could very well be a trap set up in order to make it easier for the state to eliminate an enire ethnic group. Similar to your scenario of concocting a pre text for the state to invade & commit state terrorism against them.

While so called racists (which is never defined) might indeed be attracted to any place which strives to protect a group affiliated with the so called White race (which is also never defined) the fact of the matter is that moderates would soon be in control as matter of poltical inertia. One must remember that the Oranians have pledged to be apart of the OAU & are in co-operation with the South African government which are two things that illustrate that the Orania project is not directed by a racist direction.

Ron7 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The following further illustrates the point concerning the macro State & how dictators would have less power & influence without them.

<ul> After World War I, a number of Bavarians thought that the unification of Germany had been a disaster and that Bavaria should secede from the German federation; liberals, Nazis, and communists locked arms in opposition.

All agreed with the fundamental liberal principle laid down by the French Revolution and reaffirmed by the postbellum United States that a modern state is “one and indivisible.” Had Bavaria been allowed to secede and had Hitler become its dictator, as he had tried to do, he would have posed no threat to the world, and probably little to Bavaria.

Dictators are easier to criticize and overthrow in small states than in large ones. Likewise, during the Spanish Civil War liberals, communists, and fascists all agreed in suppressing Basque and Catalonian self-rule.

</ul>

From: the Journal of Libertarian Studies.

This illustrates quite well that in order to stop fascism (& other totalitarian ideologies) the State must be dismantled first. The State is the enabler of totalitarian regimes & governments.

Ron7 04:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is this: The psychology of it all. Obviously the racists are going to be the most attracted to Orania. You know it just like I know it. The extremists also. The seperatists also. The moderates will not be as attracted, and the fact is, in the end, the social demographic will be one of a highly volatile nature. --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The First Great Trek killed and displaced many Xhosa. This second Great Trek is the first step towards ressurrecting a white-only state in Africa. Forget about it, it's not going to happen. All of your sugar-coated re-explanation does not fool me. "population consolidation" "Great Trek". There is nothing "great" about that. God, you guys really look at yourselves as unsung heroes down there! The Africans were just some bad guys that just happen to be in the way of your great wholesome adventure. God it makes me sick! --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Great Trek did no such thing. As a matter of fact one of the main causes of the Great Trek was in order to escape the Xhosas & the constant border wars with them. The Great Trek did not kill or displace them at all. It was the constant border wars which did that. The regions the Voortrekkers trekked into were largely vacant. Please get informed before disrupting my talk page with anti Boer propaganda. The people of Orania are only interested in creating a population consolidation just as the other cultural / ethnic groups in South Africa have & they are doing it in accordance with the South African Constitution.

The Great Trek was called "great" in relation to its size. Not because it was seen as great. In fact if you had bothered to do the research you would have known that the Great Trek was in danger of failing at times & those who undertook it had to endure many hardships & the very first trekking parties were killed.

The Boers were not all heroic but they were facing persecution at the Cape & constant wars on the frontier. No the "Africans" were not in the "way" until they were attacked by them & no it was not a "wholesome adventure" but an attempt on the part of the Boers to escape the conditions in the eastern Cape frontier regions. The Boers had a long series of debates over what they should do & in the end decided that it would be better for them to simply trek into the newly vacated land across the Orange & Vaal Rivers. Learn about the history of the Boers before making hateful / ignorant or asinine comments.

Ron7 05:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Xhosa were there first RON, how can you "escape" the border wars with them by goiing DEEPER into their territory? You can't. Ron, let me make one thing clear, there is nothing virtuous, honorable, good, or moral about the Afrikaaner seperatists and your reasoning is disgusting. YOu continue to make claims with assumptions embedded within them, assumptions that are based on a skewed and flawed perspective of history, you then continue with your response as if I cannot pick up your sneaky assumptions. And you expect me to respond to the whole nonsense as if it's logical or consistent? Give me a break. I have no problems with BOers or Afrikaaners, i have a problem with their attitude. You think some white racist philosohpy will prevail in S. Africa with the help of some victim-of-history routine. It won't work. You think they can scare or intimidate the black people of S. Africa to give them a smaller Afrikaaner Aparheid society. Forget it. I will not only be cheering, I will VOLUNTEER for the S. African government and be on the first plane over there if a civil war ever broke out between some white racists and the Black S. African government. I and thousands of others. "newly vacated land"... bullcrap. IT seems that you have this notion that somehow, the Boers kept going into "vacated" lands. They werent VACANT! I learned about the whole silliness in 5th grade and again in College. You guys have this screwed up whitewash history about how everywhere the Boers went, no one else was there. Oh and my favorite... the Bantus didnt come to S. Africa until the same time the Whites did. Guess what that means, they have no more a right than the whites. What HARDSHIPS did they have to face in the Cape? "Population consolidation". Ha! Where in the S. Afican constitution is "population consolidation" mentioned? [] FIND IT! I hope you aren't referring to that nonsense called the Majuba Declaration.

The Voortrekkers did not go deeper into Xhosa territory! Once again you demonstrate that you have not done any research on this topic at all. The Voortrekkers specifically went around the entire Xhosa settlements -otherwise Piet Retief (name of Fench Huguenot origin) would have went in a straight line in order to meet the Zulu King Dingane. Remember: most of the Voortrekkers went into de-populated lands to the north. These lands were de-populated due to the Difaqane started by the previous Zulu King Shaka who displaced & killed off (& absorbed some) a number of the previous Sotho related groups in the region.

The Great Trek would simply not have been possible without the fact that the lands to the north of the Orange & Vaal Rivers were made fairly vacant due to these massive inter-tribal wars. Now this is not to say that the areas were devoid of any Black people, as there were small numbers of Pedi & Venda groups in the far north of the Transvaal & there were still some Sotho groups in the Orange Free State. As a matter of fact the Barolong (a West Sotho group) helped the Voortrekkers when they came under attack by the Ndebeles (an offshoot of the Zulus but ruled mainly over Sotho related peoples in the northern Transvaal) in 1837. But the fact is that the region was devastated enough to the point where the Voortrekkers were able to settle into the region with very little resistance & a number of Sotho refugees ended up working on Boer farms. The Voortrekker Boers also had allies among the Griquas during the same time period.

Now look here: I have no idea what the hell you are babbling about "sneaky assumptions" & "flawed perspective of history". This just makes me as angry as hell because it is non other than yourself who is continuously guilty of these very things!!!!!! You have just been caught red handed claiming that the Boers went deeper into Xhosa territory when the historical record clearly shows that they specifically went around the entire settlement. Why the hell do you think they traveled so far north & with so much hardship & setbacks? You are the one who assumed that Afrikaans is "Dutch" without even doing an iota of research to learn otherwise. Have you ever heard Afrikaans being spoken in you whole bitter life? I have sir & let me tell you they sound radically different form one another! Afrikaans is a derivative of an archaic Dutch & Malay derivative with a number of other influences. You are the one making assumptions that the Oranians want to bring back Apartheid despite the fact that they have state the complete opossite.

Well well well: I see that you stated right here first on this talk page that you would in effect become a mercenary for the South African state -the oppressor- should the state concoct a pre text for the use of state terrorism. Is this all you imperialist Americans know how to do? Is it not enough that you control Afghanistan & Iraq with an eye on Iran based on the very same "incitement" concoctions? Where are all of those weapons of mass destrucution in Iraq that your "esteemed" imperialist leaders claimed where stashed away there? I suppose you will claim that the Oranians have "weapons of mass destruction" too! So Afghanistan & Iraq are not enough for you American imperialists: now you must have South Africa too? I though you folks already did with those cushy mineral & resources rights contracts.

Furthermore: fair enough, you want to volunteer to become a mercenary in support of oppressors. But have you forgotten the agreements made between the various groups of South Africa who are striving for self determination. If Orania ever comes under attack, the other main group seeking self determination: the Zulus / Twsana & Griquas will come to the defense of the Oranians as part of an agreement to look out for one another for the purpose of seeking the same goal. I think I will be having a good laugh at the irony of you being killed by a Zulu or a Tswana or a Griqua when you decide to attack the Oranians alongside the South African state which still has a lot of White Afrikaans people in their ranks. In your violent excusion against the Oranians you will find yourself attacking Black South Africans comming to their defense while serving alongside a number of White Afrikaans South Africans in the state's armed forces. The irony is just too much.

When the Zulus set up an ethnically exclusive state: one wonders if you will show the same amount of enthusiasm in support of an oppressive South African state & catch a plane in order to attack "racist" Zulus for daring to resist the state. If not than you are nothing but a hypocrite.

The fact of the matter is that the Bantus are indeed as much settlers in South Africa as the White people were. The Bantus came from central Africa. They only first arrived in the northern Transvaal region in about 1 000 AD & they did not penetrate the Kalihari dessert barrier until the latter half of the nineteenth century when White people had already long been established there. This is on the historical record.

What hardships did the Boers face in the Cape? Are you for real? Once again you betray the fact that you do not know a thing about the history of the region. The Boers in the eastern border regions were under constant attacks from the Xhosas & the new British regime was forcing them to adopt English which was the only language allowed to be used in the courts. The British even enforced laws which were not recognized by the Boers (as they had had their own legal system) one of which lead to the brutal hanging of 5 Boers at Slagters Nek.

The right of a people to form a population consolidation is found & supported in the South African Constitution.

"<ul> The right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination, as manifested in this Constitution, does not preclude, within the framework of this right, recognition of the notion of the right of self-determination of any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage, within a territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way, determined by national legislation.' </ul>"

From: article 235 of the current Constitution of South Africa.

Furthermore: while you might not like the Majuba Declaration the fact of the matter is that it is legally sound & based entirely on the South African Constitution.

Ron7 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the Majuba Declaration is the first time in over 100 years that the Boers have been officially represented.

Ron7 05:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

See Ron, the bottom line is this: White south Africans need to do what the OTHER groups (whom you so clearly recognize as distinct groups), are doing. That is living together in S. AFrica. You don't see any Zulu, Xhosa, Colored, or any other group trying to annex territory or seceede. The whites do not have a more "legitimate" reason to do so than any one else. ENOUGH of Whites this, whites that. WHites get WAY too much extra consideration. Everything in the world revolves around them. THis talk about "anti-white" is nothing more than a smoke screen. EVERYBODY deals with situations, whites are no different. They have no need to have yet another "country of their own". Boers chose to live in S. Africa, far from other whites and so they must learn to live amongs people far from Europe. NOt try to recreate EUrope in the middle of S. Africa. It's not going to happen. And yes I WILL be cheering, because there is no doubt their attempts to seceede will fail. Therefore: you are putting your hope in a pipe dream. --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"<ul> You don't see any Zulu, Xhosa, Colored, or any other group trying to annex territory or seceede. </ul>"

Another bald faced lie! This is why you have no credibility here at all. I have about had it with these constant lies & distortions. There is a strong faction of Zulus who are attempting make Kwa Zulu Natal an independent Zulu state. The Xhosas of the Transkei have attempted in the recent past to turn the Transkei into the tenth province. In fact Orania might end up simply being content with just becoming a another province. Secession from South Africa is only a distant option which many even do not want. The Rehoboth Basters of Namibia are attempting to secede from Namibia & create an independent Baster state. The Griquas of South Africa are also attempting the exact same thing.

I am disgusted with your constant anti White presumptions & accusation that only "they are attempting secession" when quite a number of other groups are as well. There are more Black people attempting to secede from South Africa & Namibia than White people. Get informed. Furthermore: most of the White population is not attempting to secede. The English speakers are the most content segment of the White population. Gee I wonder why? For one thing they finally achieved a linguistic hegemony in the region.

Another erroneous assumption on your part is that the Oranians want to secede. This is false. The hope is to create an Afrikaans enclave just as many other groups have in the state. Orania is most likely to end up as another province. The secessionist option is only a distant option that could only ever come about if the South African government becomes violently oppressive against them or if the state itself simply collapses.

What you are doing is confusing race with culture. The fact that you are not threatened by White people in your neighbourhood can not be extrapolated or equated to the various cultures of Africa. One must remember that the problem is not race but culture. You support a faulty race based paradigm. The people of the America of all races have been deracinated & are disconnected from their tribal roots. This is why America has largley adopted a White vs Black divide whereby in Africa the various groups are in more competition among one another than divided along race lines. Both Europe & Africa are much more tribalized than the America were tribal loyalties had largely vanished.

Ron7 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I also read further up, not realizing that the bulk of your responses have been in this page all this time. I can summarize this. I have no hatred or anything against whites. Unlike white racist Afrikaaner and Boers, I do not object to lighskinned nor darkskinned people of mixed descent of varying degrees living in S. Africa. I also, unlike the nutcases over there, I also respect the notion of a unity society there, and again, unlike the Boer racists, I do not feel threatened, not culturally or in any other way by the mere presence of White people in my neighborhood or community. IF I did, i would be considered to be a paranoid delusional fanatic needing mental help. Thats what the Volkstaaters need. Mental help. And there is no way that a bunch of psychological dysfunctional people should be left to their own devices to once again artifically create a society that is only for them. Pardon my cursing, but they fucked it up for about 100 years, and no, they don't have any good reason to try again. --Zaphnathpaaneah 17:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling a group of accomplished people "psychological(ly) dysfunctional" is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. You can disagree with their perspective but calling their mental faculties into question is the craven act of a rogue. Furthermore no true Christian would ever use the f word let alone volunteer himself to kill a group of people he has never met. Is this what George Bush's America has become? He is a lot like you sir. He too is a fake Christian who likes to use the f word "f--- Saddam" (as he was noted as stating) & using military force to overthrow regimes he does not like & to kill groups of people he never met. I find it frightening how much your country is veering towards open Fascism yet you nitpick about a small group of beleaguered people who are mainly just striving to extricate themselves from the madness & fascism that you American & British imperialists created in the Southern African region.

I have a profound question for you. Since you are on the record for advocating & using military force -essentially state terrorism- against a regime or collectivity that you do not like: How are you any different from that thug & other former American regime imperialist Henry Kissenger? Remember he also did not like the ideology of a whole group of people in East Timor & allowed the Indonesian government to invade them because they were "too communist". Or what he did to Chile when he gave the order for Pinochet to overthrow the government because it was "too Marxist" (though it really had more to do with Chile impeding American interests in the region). The fact is that while one might not like certain regimes or enclaves: there is nothing than can ever justify state sponsored terrorism against them.

Ron7 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And just to spite that philosophy, because I hold it in the most contempt. I will literally have an orgasm when I see these Volkstaaters try to "establish" a new state in the Cape (or whereever) with a big chunk visible from space of S. Africa. And as time passes, (this is the best part) some black and other non-whites will come in, moving in, and will victoriously do so. Whether or not it's by war, diplomacy, foreign introvention, or Afrikaaner hardliners giving up. The satisfaction will be watching their 2nd Apartheid-reicht fall. So bring it on. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You insist that the characater and identity of the Boers is not white. That is deceptive of you. To draw on some strange interpretation of “boer identity” does not weigh much against this historical obvious fact. The Boer concept is a “white” concept. The core and bulk of Boer “ness” is intrinsicly white. The non-European “ancestral” communities are no more relevant to Boer identity than to any other “white” identity. This “amalgram” is a sham, and you are only riding the fact that no one group of people is ancestrally homogenous in the extremist sense. The various European origins of the people, whether they were brought as servants of the VOC or refugees is irrelevant. You focus so much on the plight of the Europeans and how they became Boers and Afrikaaners, but you do not care enough to understand that their exclusive identity (which is just another lightskinned-white looking only club) and the exclusive “only” volkstaat movement is a detriment to the greater society around them. So because of this exclusiveness that harkens strictly to a Western European ideal or core, they are to be treated as such. You talk so much of them being not really European, but the fact of the matter is their existence is based on European sensibilities and exclusiveness. That has not changed in a mere 12 years. African Americans on the other hand do not practice this. For many of us, who are substantially native American and 99% of us who were brought as slaves with NO choice whatsoever, we did not exclude Native Americans from our identity, nor do we practice any kind of institutionalized “seperatist” movement (especially not one at the exclusion of Native Americans!) The African American did come from outside America, but we do not come from a society that participated in the destruction of Native America. The Boers were not “taken” nor “forced”, and yet again, you try to spin this discussion into one where it honestly would not go. You cannot even begin to discuss the circumstances of the VOC and their participation in “taking” Europeans and “putting” them into S. Africa. That still addresses nothing of their own exploitation and atrocity against the black people (of which the Khoi are a part) of S. Africa. The whole issue of them coming ‘all the way’ from Europe, is to address the fundamental lie that the Europeans (whom the Boers are identified with) came at the ‘same time’ as the “Bantu”. It is also to address the silly lie about how the Khoi are “not really black” and thus a middle ground for the white seperatists and Apartheiders to justify their appropriation of land. The Khoi have been used as a racial tool by having them classified as ‘colored’. Now the use of them as “part of the Boer heritage” reeks of disgusting fakery. The Boers were not a marginal part of Apartheid. You obviously confuse Afrikaaner (A general white person who lives in S. Africa and speaks the dutch dialect they call Afrikaans) with a Boer (a specific KIND of Afrikaaner who has some cultural differences from the English and other Afrikaaners. It’s like you are arguing about the difference between a “Canadian” and “Quebecker”. Even though many colored will call themselves “Afrikaaner” as well (that the term more generally is one of a linguistic value much like calling oneself Anglophone in Canada, even if one is black), the fact of the matter is, the Boer presence in S. Africa during Apartheid was prominent and their presence beforehand had a disasterous effect on the Xhosa and Khoi. Nevermind the British, because they are not in control of the country and there is no British mandate for a British-only settlement anywhere in S. Africa. I am also aware of how the whole “boer” name is being reshaped and recycled for right-wing exclusionary purposes. If you call yourself a boer and you look like a white man, your basically trying to say that you have a “right” to your own white’s only enclave in S. Africa. And for you to go on and on with your nonsense about 20% Khoi genes, and what not, that’s the ignorance on your part. Then to go on and on about the difference between a “true nationalism” and “macro-state” is nothing more than your arguing about two groups of white people disagreeing on which group is ‘right’ or deserving. 1. You contradict yourself, since you explain how small and irrelevant the boers are, how then should they have been the logical or ethical nationalistic pinnacle? But even more important than that. You forgot something, the Black people! Again! They are far more numerous and far more relevant because of that. They also far more than any Boer or British, earn the right to determine the national continutity of the state. But they were last, and given none. Not by the British nor Afrikaaners (Boers, nor Cape Dutch). You are going on and on about the macro-state again, but you think that means squat? No, the British outlawed slavery which created MORE “problems” for the Boers! Boo hoo! When Apartheid came about the Boer “nationalists” were leading the way in establishing and concentrating power into the “white” group, not the colored group. There was no Boer colored unity. And to only extend justice and equality halfway to some boerfolk who are mixed is fake anyway! All this talk about how far across the color-bar a Boer can go and still be Boer is baloney still. Using the Khoi as a go between from “native rights” to “no blacks allowed” is still racism, is still prejudice, is still a form of diluted white supremacy. I’m lighterskinned than they are, so use me for your exclusionary purposes? No, I don’t think so. And the part that pisses me off is that I know that you know this deep down. You’re human and intelligent, you can’t possibly “overlook” this glaring fact. You’ve gone and worn out the phrase “macro-state”, because it’s a weak attempt to explain how a larger society is “bad” compared to the small “mom-and-pop” communities that Orania is supposed to reperesent. You’re using economic spin words to pull at the heartstrings of the readers, and that pisses me off too, because again, your perspective is totally all about the whitefolk. There was no balance of power in the region. Your biased clipping about 1800s friendly competition between boers and africans is yet another distortion of facts. The Boers were invading on lands that were already occupied by black people. And like America with the Native Americans, they kept pressing and pressing and then shooting and killing and then annexing and stealing land. How can you establish a “state” called “orange free state” encompassing an area where other people inhabit… people 10 times more… no I forget, you said earlier how SMALL the boer population is. 30-40 times as numerous as your own? How then can you “establish” this “free state” against your worn out “macro-state british” only to exclude the native inhabitents from being in any decisive role in it’s determination. That’s like a bunch of Zulu going to Britain, conquering Wales and then establishing a Zuluesque state in Wales while the welsh have to just sit and watch what the Zulu will do next against their Xhosa macro-state oppressors! You see how retarded that even SOUNDS? I could go on and on about how the Xhosa oppressed the Zulu, but what the heck difference would that make when both are obviously oppressing the Welsh! Or using the Welsh for furthering their own ends. Or how the Zulu have been in Britain for so long some of these Zulu are partly mixed with Welsh, and so now these Zulus whom we call “Zoers” are actually not Zulu at all, even though they look no different than Zulu and they still treat the Welsh like crap. It’s rediculous! Inconceiveable fiction for you, but nevertheless, retarded in any light. So then too is this crazyness you bring about the British macro-state vs the beleagured Boers! Your whole passionate story leaves out the main group of people, the black people! Like the blacks were going to say to the Boers… “Oh you’re being oppressed by the British macro-state? Oh I am so sorry for being here while you trek on by to avoid them. Here let me kiss your butt a little more and just be a good negro and not fight against your apartheid policy? Oh? You aren’t behind it? You are just going ALONG with it? Oh who did it? Oh those guys over there? You mean the ones that look, talk, think, and act just like you? Oh me oh my, I can’t tell em apart! Sorry boer-boss, let me stop. Oh what that’s you say now? Now that I have freed myself from your comfortable Apartheid that someone else that just so happens to look and think like you invented…. Now you want your own town and country right here in the middle of where my people live and used to live? Why? Oh you want to get away from those other guys that look like you AND you want to get away from ME? But I thought you and I were buddies? That’s what you said!  What’s that? Oh if I live too close I might make you disappear? You having a hard time dealing with me being too close? Oh I am soooo sorry! The British did all of this to ya? Oh land sakes!”  You live in a fantasy world if you think you are going to convince anybody that the Boers (who kept black people as slaves) are not a part of the racist and imperialist white ambitions of S. Africa. You anger me with your sly attempts to do so. And you anger me further with your indignation and your justifications and complaints against me. You anger me yet further with all of this ignorance of yours with your accusations of hatred. Apartheid is in its ESSENCE a hateful ideology. To believe in it, to support it, whether for convenience, derision, or even a mere sanitized reasoning that somehow, some way, supporting Apartheid was a reasonable, or logical or (fill in the blank) justifiable way to cope or deal with or respond to the “big bad” macro state of Britain. In no stretch of the imagination is this the case. Nationalist conflict between Britain and Boer had little to do with the black people. ALL of the supporters of Apartheid were certainly guilty of contempt for black people. Apartheid was an attack on black people… not British, nor English speakers. And I am so tired of you disrespecting Black people with this arrogant attitude of yours. As if it’s beyond the thought that that line of reasoning is flawed to you. And so you have no doubt, THAT is where my hatred is focused. On that disgustingly evil thought process “there were many supporters who were simply attempting to deal with the situation created by Britain & were not necessarily motivated by hatred.” If I could I would tell you to “fuck that” directly to your face a thousand times. BOTH the British and the Afrikaaner/Boers oppressed the Black people. I don’t deny Britain did whatever you accuse them. I don’t CARE because they were not the ruling party during Apartheid. Every election, when it came time to do away with Apartheid, it got worse. Britain was not the blame for that. You don’t hurt someone just because someone ELSE hurt you. You don’t hurt someone just because you are having a hard time “coping” with how someone else treated you. They committed atrocities against Black people because the British were mean to them one or two generations beforehand?!? Servitude is irrelevant at this point. I don’t care if they did or didn’t have them around as servants. The disgusting hatred and evil of Apartheid was well beyond human comprehension. It was an over indulgence of white superiority complex and a policy to insure that the white people of S. Africa had their “own exclusive” home. So no “sir” you stop it. You stop repeating what I say as if you have more credibility. You do not. You are not more reasonable, you are not more sensible. You are not settling the score, or clearing up the issue. You are the confusion, and the distortion of facts. You sit here and blame Britain for the atrocities of the Boers and for this new underhanded tactic called Volkstaat. And then you think you are clever telling me to “stop blaming Boers that were initiated and maintained by others”. You think I am to stupid to see through that? Afrikaaner speakers make up 6 million – 8 million of S. Africa, mostly WHITE. And any Afrikaaner speaker who is a conservative nationalist can be a boer. So cut the crap. All this to say that they have a right to self-determination up to even annexing and seceding from S. Africa. And you just are totally bought into the notion that they won’t go back to their Apartheid white Supremacy ways. Especially without government regulation, you consider the notion that a corporation, run by white conservative boers will be more justified in doing practically whatever the hell they please. Keep buying more and more land around the cape and creating a smaller Apartheid volkstaat. Oh and this is to “prevent” Apartheid.  For those kind of people who WANT that to happen, yes I will be cheering if their schemes are thwarted. --208.254.174.148 13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

On to the other distortion, which has also triggered my passionate responses. This nonsense about Boers being legitimately connected to the ancestral heritage of S. Africa just because someone has a great-great-great grandmother that was raped or duped into some slave-master sexual encounter. Let us not confuse “ancestry” with heritage. You posted ONE photograph of a group of boers and ONE of them looks partly Asian. And this goes back to Apartheid and how obviously evil it was. Laws were passed forbidding intermarriage between people of color (let alone whites and blacks). What the Fu—does me being a Xhosa marrying a Malay have to do with your fu—ing line of reasoning that the Boers had to cope with the british macro-state? Heck what does CALLING anyone “colored” have to do with Boer issues with Britain or S. Africa??? If they had the power to implement Apartheid, heck they had the power to move on! Johannesburg is in the middle of BOER country! But back to the issue. Boers don’t look Black, period. They don’t look mixed. They look like white people. Some look maybe partly Asian. Asians are more “acceptable” in the white supremacy mentality than blacks. So a “boer/asian” is more tolerable than a “boer/black” for your Oranians who are “coping with being put into a macro-state”. I’m beyond flabbergasted. I can’t tell where you think these Boers will end up. A white enclave in the middle of SOUTH AFRICA? Have you lost your mind? I don’t HAVE an opinion because I don’t HAVE an opinion. What incites my hatred is what they have DONE, now “WHO” they are. They did STEAL land and they did COMMIT ATROCITIES. So yes, in one breath I tell you I don’t hate a person for merely existing (unlike our Afrikaaner/Boers who can’t even deal with a black person living near them for the virtue of their skin color). And I deny a small group, I deny one solitary individual the right to have any atom, any molecule of south African dirt to set aside for a white’s only country, community, social order. Do you hear me Ron. NOT one proton of carbon, silicon, oxygen, or any other element is to be set aside as ‘whites only’ in S. Africa. I don’t care if they scratch out the word “white” and put the word “boer” or not. They can have all the electrons the want though. I don’t give a rats butt about that. So there are no tricks. You yourself are far more tricky (Oh let them have the land, they are just a little group of beleaguered innocents trying to escape the macro-state… aw I just feel so warm and fuzzy inside!). That Orania is going to turn into nothing less than a hornets nest of extremists seeking to expand and “grow” and then create their own “have-have nots” with “donations” from white supremacists all over the world. But let me make sure you understand something. I can live next door to a bunch of Afrikaaners or Boers if they renounce this line of thinking and that kind of hatred you justify. I don’t need to feel threatened culturally by their mere PRESENCE! --13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC) And now you go into nonsense about how bad it is for a state to rule over a mini-empire? Do you think I care one way or another about that…. Goofballery? What state? South Africa? The state ruled by its majority indigenous population is the bad guy that is stealing land from the innocent boers? I mean you don’t IDENTIFY who is who. There is no part of S. Africa that is exclusively bare for the whites and I don’t agree that they should have the same right to ancestral claims as the Zulu. Just because some of them have a Khoi great grand parent doesn’t give them exclusive claim (which by the way would exclude other Khoi who don’t have as much white in them) to own any land in S. Africa. White identity is a form of white exceptionalism in itself. The Boers are not an indigenous group just because their DISTINCTIVELY WHITE elements have been there for 100-300 years. No, that’s not gonna cut it. Had they come without the “hiel hitler” philosophy, enslaving right along with the other whites, Jim Crowing right along with the others, and excluding darker skinned people right with the others then maybe they would be respected more for this. But no, they followed right along. They are not any less white for it. And what makes it so disgusting is that these Whites, unlike the Zulu, and others are proposing an EXCLUSIVE right to live there. I.E. no one else allowed. I know that the Zulu, Xhosa and other “claims” are not that extreme. So yes it is up to the groups to decide these matters and I am banking on the blacks to win out. And all I want is for the exclusivity to be destroyed. Like I said, I’m totally cool with them living there, and doing whatever. But a black person should have every right to live in the same area and community. Period. Once that is in contention, then we have a problem. Once you say ‘no blacks allowed’ we have a problem. Once you limit what the black people can or cannot do in comparison to the whites in the area we have a problem. Your excuse ‘it’s being done in the name of cultural preservation’ is unacceptable. So these “white rights” or “boer rights” are at the expense of black people. Black exclusion, and black prejudice is unacceptable under any and all circumstances. ESPECIALLY in the middle of S. Africa, a historically black country. Do not think one second I will ever be distracted from these facts. For you to be so drawn into the Boers and their existence (funny since they started as an offshot of dutch people living in the cape) which you feel is threatened over and over and over, (yet their population keeps growing, not shrinking). And now with your interest in including Khoi and other colored folk in as Boer, I find it amazing that you (within your logic above) find them threatened. But again, the honesty of what you speak of is balanced by the extreme prejudice from which you justify yourself. You cannot have two people occupy the same space at the same time. And breaking every country in the world into smaller and smaller chunks just because every minority has a grievance is not a solution. Especially since this one wants a racially-based and/or skin-color based structure to the preservation of their identity. So you keep on going with your belief in the rights of this group and that group, and that’s all fine. But the Boers are the youngest “ethnic” group out there. And once again we see a white group pushing the limits of legitimacy at the expense of others. I certainly agree that the violence against anyone is wrong. Yet I feel a sense of frustation with those white farmers. All these years, you notice that the farmers never paid an equitable wage. They paid their black farm hands less than the white ones. In addition, the technological experience with the farming equipment they never allowed the black workers to learn, and instead the black farmers have always had a disadvantage. The problem will be put under control when these two issues are resolved. Teaching the black farmers how to maintain and utilize the technology instead of keeping it hidden from them would be the right way to resolving this issue. And yes of course protecting all the farmers from violence and prosecuting those who attempt to or who attack any farmers black or white. But all this talk about you and the Boers “hardy folks” and “London backed Xhosa” is a sham. The bottom line is that the white oppressive philosophy (exceptionalism) is the root cause. It’s the cause of all of the stuff you bring up and the Boer Volkstaat will not be a solution but an aggrivation of this problem that plagues the human race from Japan to Argentina. No one is talking about the Boers being killed off. What is happening is that the Boers are dealing with the same problems as the black people have been dealing with. Now that the problem is being dealt with everyone, NOW its evident how extreme the Apartheid legacy is. You have ignorant people running criminal gangs (black and white), extremists all over the place. You free people from a dictatorship and don’t have enough of a stand against the collateral damage. How much of the educated left, taking the infrastructure with them? How many more try to hoard and cordon off everything which is left? Now you have inexperienced politicans ripe for corruption and those who will try to take advantage. Now this affects EVERYONE adversely, not JUST the boers. And like it or not, thanks to Apartheid, the “benefits” of technological experience are disproportionately in their hands, and in addition they are supported all over the world in part by those who left, including rich moguls who think they can buy into this neo-colonial dream of Volkstaat. I don’t see myself supporting any Black movement in S. Africa that wishes to force all the white people into a reservation. But you have to understand that these Volkstaaters are shirking responsibility for their part in Apartheid, and you are comforting them in that. All of your talk is to minimize their role in it and to somehow emotionally guide the conversation towards an end where the readers will forget (or never accept) that Boers enslaved, abused, exploited, and harmed black people in the name of white supremacy and Apartheid. Now you have reinvented the Boer, now he is a mulatto of sorts who is more Khoi than white, but the faces I see in Orania are white faces, with white voices and white ambitions. I certainly see the potential in Orania, the commitment and the drive, and that’s great. But I see that in other parts of S. Africa, among black people as well.

And here is the Official website of Orania [] and the 11 or 12 people I see in these pictures are all white, and indistinguishable from an exclusively White Indo-European people. They see themselves as white, not as colored, not as relevantly mixed with Khoi. They see themselves exclusively white. And everytime I think I am being hard on you Ron7, I go and get some cold hard facts, and I come back here enraged at how you try to manipulate this conversation. This website link is from the Orania city itself. And the link in question talks about WHO the Orania people are. You see Europeans, nothing but Europeans. And again, I don’t really have a problem with them being there. But I can’t deal with the fact that some industrious black people may want to work together to spread the industrious potential. Yet these people want to use this to eventually create a new whites only society. Nevermind that nonsense about one or two of them having a great-grand parent that is Khoi or part asian. I know what I see and I hope no one else in here is stupid or naïve to buy into that nonsense you brought up earlier. See your statements below only confirm how biased you are.

you are accusing people of hatred even though many people who supported Apartheid (as wrong as it was) did so not because they hated anyone but because they felt that it was the best way to deal with the heterogeneous cultural populations

I am so pissed to hear someone say such a thing and to get away with it. Anyone who feels that Apartheid was the best way to deal with other people, especially knowing what it was doing to the other people… anyone who thinks that way is a hateful contemptuous individual. Hatred does not have to be expressed with a violent anger, it can also be expressed with a cold indifference and with an irritating lack of patience. You don’t exploit and oppress other people just because YOU feel inconvenienced with what history has dealt cards. What you said is wrong Ron. Now at this point I could go on and on, but yes I hate to see people thinking like you do. I do not hate you, I hate how you think and I hate with a passion the excusably racist reasoning you say. There was nothing to “deal with” Ron. Black people are not people you have to ‘deal with’. You deal with misbehaving children and dangerous animals. You deal with criminals. You don’t ‘deal with’ groups of people, especially not indigenous groups whose land you are taking and living off of. The issue is thus people are dealing with you. That “dealing with” response is the part that is the most offensive. The white people had to deal with the inconvenience of Black people being around them. Sickening philosophy. --208.254.174.148 13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC) I will surely deal with whatever accusations you bring further into this discussion, But I have no intention of writing 7 -10 page term papers, much of which is repetitive, just because you are too dense to understand the real concept of treating people equally in all respects. --208.254.174.148 13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well once again you are drawing on a strereotypical image of the Boers. The West likes to paint them as being White because they are seen as such in contrast to other local groups. Even most Boers see themselves as White but that does not negate the historical intricacies of their full ethnic origins & composition.

Now your accusation that the Volkstaat movement is a detriment to the greater society around them is another bald faced lie & totally erreneous. For one thing any success the Volkstaat people achieve will be passed on to the surrounding groups. This will be most notable in farming production. The Volkstaat will go a long way in preserving a homegrown ability for the region to be self sufficient & to not rely on foreign imports. Furthermore the Volkstaat supporters are committed to helping any other group to strive for self determination.

What you are really doing here is covertly attempting to protect the oppressive South African state in which all of its denizens languish under. Abolishing the old Apartheid laws was only half of the solution. To complete the abolition of the oppression the state itself must be abolished. Read up on Mikhail Bakunin: one of the greatest anarchist philosophers who saw the perils of the state. Laws are only the symptoms of the problem. The State is the source of the problem. But too may people are still too fond of saying that their currupt politician or regime is better than someone else's corrupt politician or regime playing a fixed game which can never be won.

"<ul> You talk so much of them being not really European </ul>"

Well the Boers broke their ties to Europe early on & viewed themselves as Aficans. Then they adopted a language with was formed on African soil & developed a homegrown culture & are even called White Africans. The term Afrikaner is basically the Afrikaans term for African. The neo colonial Cape Afrikaners would later hijack this term as part of an attempt to assimilate the Boers of Voortrekker descent.

"<ul> nor do we practice any kind of institutionalized “seperatist” movement </ul>"

Well the Nation of Islam certainly does. Also let's not forget about Marcus Garvey & his UNIA. Where do you think the Black Nationalists get their famous tri colour flag from.

"<ul> These Dutch settlers were in fact on the the lowest rung of society in the Netherlands and were forced to join Jan van Riebeeck, who was a cruel tyrant. This was Holland's way of dealing with outcasts, pretty much like what Britain did by sending convicts and low-life's to Australia. Information gained from Van Riebeeck's diary.) </ul>"

From: Who Were The Boers of the Anglo-Boer War.

The ancestors of the Boers were indeed taken & forced to accompany the tyrannical Jan van Riebeeck to the Cape. Read up on it.

Now once again you spin & distort. The Khoisan people are not Black & stating otherwise is pure madness. This is pure racial colonialism & is tantamount to calling the Japanese "a White" people just because they have light skin. Furthermore: it can not be used as justification for expropriating their land since much of the Khoisan peoples are gone & they are the aboriginal people of the region.

"<ul> Now the use of them as “part of the Boer heritage” reeks of disgusting fakery. </ul>"

Not again. No one is "using them as part of Boer heritage". Most Boers probably do not even acknowledge them as ancestors. But the fact of the matter is that this is the cold hard fact. A significant number of Khoi along with Malays & even more Indians were absorbed into the nascent Boer nation.

<ul> The Khoisan of modern times were referred to by the early white settlers as “Bushmen” and “Hottentots.” --it is well known that “they contributed a high proportion of the genes of the “Coloured” people, who constitute 9 percent of the population of the modern Republic of South Africa. --“What is less well known is that they also provided a smaller, but still considerable, proportion of the genes of the Bantu-speaking Africans, who form 75 percent of the population of the republic, and that they have provided genes to the people whom governments officially classified as white and who amount to 13 percent of the modern population” (Thompson 6). </ul>

From: Jonathan Steinwand, Concordia College.

Stop being so derisive against myself for acknowledging this fairly well known & reported fact. I find this almost hilarious because on the one hand you have people beating up those Boers with racist views for not acknowledging their non White heritage & lineage while on the other hand progressive or aware Boers who do acknowledge this part of their heritage are beaten up by virtually the same people. What's wrong with this picture?

Furthermore: the non White heritage & lineage of the Boers contributed more than just their genes to the Boer nation. They also greatly shaped the language that the Boers & Afrikaners speak. The language was picked up in part by the early Boers from the Indian / Khoi & Malay servants of the VOC. Thus the language of the Boers soon evolved into a Dutch & Malay derivative with numerous words of Malay & Khoi origin spoken in an Oriental cadence (which you would know if you heard someone speaking in Afrikaans) with a strong French influence notably in that the consonants following vowels are nasalized just as it is in French.

Afrikaans is so unlike any other European based language that a character in Lethal Weapn II inquired if it was "Japanese" or "Spanish" when overheard on a C B.

<ul> Afrikaans, the modern version is more than merely a Dutch derivative as some would suggest.

Inextricably linked for the last century with the development and application of apartheid within South Africa, the immense reach and value of this language has often been overlooked within the wider political climate.

While the Dutch, who arrived in South Africa in 1652 and established a colony in Cape Town, are largely credited with the birth of the language, the version spoken today is an accumulation of many other influences. The Dutch dialect established after 1652 incorporated terms and phrases handed down from sailors who had been shipwrecked off the Cape coast after it became clear that the horn of Africa presented another viable trade route. These phrases, of both english and portuguese origin, soon found their way into the dutch dialect.

In addition, the language took on a more oriental flavour with the arrival of a slaves in the Cape, primarily of Malay extraction, but also from other eastern regions and nearby African islands including Madagascar.

This spiced the language considerably, and when the accents, dialects and phrases of the original inhabitants of the land were added to the mix, it became evident that Afrikaans was a completely different animal to its Dutch parent.

The Hottentots, original Koi inhabitants as well as the Xhosa and the Zulu people all contributed in their fashion to the language as it spoken today.

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. </ul>

From: History of the Afrikaans language in South Africa

The following text is straight form the Stop Boer Genocide site.

<ul> THE BOERS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVELY WHITE, THERE ARE ALSO MIXED RACE AMONG THEM AND NEITHER DO THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES WHITE SUPREMISTS.

IT IS ABOUT TIME THE WORLD KNEW THIS AND STOPPED JUDGING THEM AS BLACK HATERS.

AND UPON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF APARTHEID BY THE AFRIKANER GOVERNMENT (WHO WERE NOT BOERS AND UNDER BRITISH INFLUENCE) MANY FAMILIES WERE FORCED TO SEGREGATE.

HUSBANDS AND WIVES AND CHILDREN WERE FORCED TO SEGREGATE BECAUSE OF COLOUR DIFFERENCES.

ALSO REMEMBER THAT THERE IS A RADICAL BLACK ELEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA WHICH INTIMIDATES EVERY CULTURE IN IT, INCLUDING IT'S OWN CULTURE AND CREED.

IT IS THIS ELEMENT THAT RULES SOUTH AFRICA TODAY. NOT FORGETTING WHILE WE THINK COMMUNISM IS DEAD TODAY IN THE WESTERN WORLD, IT IS ALIVE AND WELL IN SOUTH AFRICA.

BOER GENOCIDE IS A SYTEMATIC EVIL CAMPAIGN AGAINST A CULTURE THAT THREATENS SOUTH AFRICAN COMMUNISM TODAY.

THE BOER GENOCIDE IN SOUTH AFRICA TODAY IS A REALISTIC STATE OF THE AFFAIRS IN SOUTH AFRICA WHICH CANNOT BE IGNORED BY THE WORLD GOVERNMENTS.

REMEMBER RWANDA ... SOMETHING THE UNITED NATIONS COULD NOT SWEEP UNDER THE CARPET ...

THE BOER GENOCIDE MIGHT NOT MAKE HEADLINE NEWS, HOWEVER GOD KNOWS. Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death;

don't stand back and let them die.

Don't try to disclaim responsibility by saying you didn't know about it.

For God, who knows all hearts, know yours, and He knows you knew!

And He will reward everyone according to his deeds.

Proverbs 24 verse 11,12 </ul>

From: The Stop Boer Genocide Site.

The Boers were indeed marginalized during the Apartheid era. For starters. The Boers rebelled in 1914 in order to re-instate the Boer Republics but the Afrikaner government of Louis Botha (himself a former Boer general turned pro British Afrikaner) violently put it down just as you are arguing to do to the Oranians. Furthermore: in 1922 the Afrikaner government again used military force to shoot many left-wing affiliated Boers who were protesting the conditions on the Rand. Then later in 1961 a Boer named Robert van Tonder left the National Party in order to pursue the goal of re-establishing the Boer Republics.

The Boers were marginalized due to the fact that they were outnumbered by the Afrikaners of Cape descent. The Boers would not have been as small in numbers as they were, were it not for the deaths of so many Boer children in the concentration camps during the Anglo-Boer War.

It has been estimated that the total White Afrikaans population would be at about 7 million instead of the currect 3 million were it not for the deaths of about half of the total children of the Boer Republics during the Anglo-Boer War.

There are not more than 1 million Boers of Voortrekker descent.

It was not that the Boer presence was strong during the Apartheid era. It was that the Afrikaners would tend to borrow their history in order to justify their policies. One must also remember that the Afrikaner elite (much like the British before them) had turned Pretoria into one of their Capitals. The Boers are a colonized people & it makes no difference whether the colonizers were English speaking or were Afrikaans speaking from the Cape. The fact is that the Boers of Voortrekker descent were marginalized & were co-opted in many cases into both the Afrikaner & English speaking communities. It is a little known fact that many Boer children were adopted into English speaking families after the devastation of the Anglo-Boer War. Those who remained Afrikaans speakers were expected to work towards a greater Afrikaner nationalism (neo colonialism) though there were still many who refused to go along & still flew the old republican flags (though the Afrikaners tried to expropriate these too) & maintained their culture & dialect.

Wrong again. The rump of the British Empire is indeed still in control of South Africa as the London bankers are in control of the economy including the manufacturing sector as well as the lucrative resources & mineral enterprises. This English speaking moneyed elite select the people who are appointed to power.

"<ul> You contradict yourself, since you explain how small and irrelevant the boers are, how then should they have been the logical or ethical nationalistic pinnacle? </ul>"

No I do not. This is a complex issue. The Boers were smaller in numbers than the Afrikaans speakers at the Cape, but the Cape Afrikaners never developed a truly independent identity as the Boers of the frontiers & later republics did. Once the Cape based Afrikaners were in control of South Africa after having long served the British even fighting against their Boer cousins during the Anglo-Boer War: they then began to set about co-opting the Boers (at least on a nominal political level) by appropriating their history as a nationalist agitprop to rationalize their ascendancy in the region.

The long of the short of it is that the Afrikaners had to get as much Boer support as they could because by themselves they were not much more numerous than the English speakers but they knew that a combined White Afrikaans speaking population was just enough to dominate the English speakers within the political realm & context.

The Afrikaners did not suddenly become such Boer fans. What they wanted was to expropriate Boer lands in order to gain the right to govern Boer region by co-opting the Boers & reversing their status as a distinct & independent people. This was the essence of Afrikaner nationalism during the past century & why the Boers were marginalized. It is quite similar to how the British subjects came to Canada & began to expropriate the term Canadien (which was previously used exclusively among the French speakers of New France -modern Quebec-) which lead to the French speaking Canadiens to become marginalized within the emerging Canadian state.

"<ul> You are going on and on about the macro-state again </ul>"

The macro state forced various national groups under a single administration for the first times in most of their lives. The Xhosas were independent in Xhosaland before the British conquered them in the 19th century & annexed them into the Cape. The Zulus were independent in Zululand before the British conquered them in 1879 & annexed them into Natal. The Griquas were independent in the Northern Cape before being conquered by Britain & encroached by Boers. The Boers themselves were independent in the Boer Republics which were internationally recognized before being conquered by the British in 1900.

"<ul> the British outlawed slavery which created MORE “problems” for the Boers! </ul>"

It only created problems for the Cape Dutch as most Boers of the eastern Cape frontier did not own slaves. As Canadian professor Wallace Mills & the Encyclopedia Britannica notes. At any rate: the problem was not the abolition of slavery but the ridiculous compensation which was impossible to collect.

<ul> Landless poor whites.

- recent interpretations tend to stress more mundane factors and motivations for the movement. The migratory habits to acquire more land, which were firmly established by trekboers throughout the 18th C, had been bottled up for 40-50 years and there were growing numbers of landless white males. In trekboer society, this was a terrible situation and fate. Their only course was to become a ?bywoner? to some relative or other farmer with land. As such, they would provide services (usually as an overseer) and be allowed to use some land for a few cattle or agricultural purposes. This meant that their status was only a bit better than non-white servants.

- this interpretation sees the Great Trek as merely the bursting of the dam that had bottled such migrations up for over 2 generations. Piet Retief?s Manifesto.

- Retief was one of the most influential of the Great Trek leaders. Among those who joined the Great Trek, he was a bit unusual in a couple of respects. He was much better off than most trekkers; at one time he owned over 20 lots in Grahamstown as well as farm properties. As can be seen from his letter (it was translated for publication in the Grahamstown Journal), he was better educated than most who were illiterate or just barely literate.

- Retief's so-called manifesto has too often been accepted uncritically and without analysis of context. Not all the assertions can be accepted at face value. It must be analysed carefully and critically.

- for example, the complaint about the abolition of slavery and the process of compensation for a long time went unexamined and was repeated innumerable times as a factor in the trek (by both friends and critics).

- ''' however, investigation revealed that slavery was not common in the eastern frontier areas from which almost all the Voortrekkers came. ''' Besides, no new slaves could be imported after 1807 and the prices of the existing slaves had risen markedly. Very few (if any) Voortrekkers had ever owned slaves. Retief's only known connection was that at one time he had borrowed money from an ex-slave woman!

- undoubtedly, there were grievances and complaints; even that early, they had established a catalogue of complaints and felt genuinely aggrieved (whether we think the grievances were as serious as they did is another matter). </ul>

From: The Great Trek chapter by Professor Wallace Mills.

The Boer nationalists were not leading the way it was the Afrikaner nationalists. Remember: the creator of Grand Apartheid was Hendrik Verwoerd who was from Holland with no ancestry in South Africa at all. Daniel Francois Malan: the Prime Minister elected on the Grand Apartheid platform was from the Western Cape & not of Boer descent. These are the incontrovertible facts.

"<ul> There was no Boer colored unity. </ul>"

Not overtly within the political realm but the Coloureds have always been aligned with them for the most part.

"<ul> Political Situation: In 1795, the British took over the Cape from the Dutch. When the Boers (Afrikaans-speaking farmers) trekked north to escape British rule, this left the Coloureds more free socially and politically. They benefited under the more benevolent British rule. Socially the British also looked down on the Coloureds. Their social isolation grew as British settlers began to establish themselves in Cape Colony. As Afrikaans speakers, the Coloureds also suffered under British domination in the 1800s, when Afrikaans was made illegal for public use. The Coloureds have been aligned with the Afrikaners politically for most of their history. </ul>"

From: The Coloureds of Southern Africa.

"<ul> You’ve gone and worn out the phrase “macro-state” </ul>"

Well I am an anti Statist with anarchist leanings after all. Furthermore: this is precicely what South Africa is: a macro state. So too is Canada & the United States as well.

"<ul> How can you establish a “state” called “orange free state” encompassing an area where other people inhabit… people 10 times more… no I forget, you said earlier how SMALL the boer population is. </ul>"

The Orange Free State was established on part of the region which was devastated by the Difaqane. There were only small numbers of Sotho & Griqua people there. The Boers were a numerical majority during much of the era of the Boer republics. The Black people started to become larger when they were being imported from the Cape & Natal by the British magnates after the gold mines were started. The Boer population is only small in comparison to the Afrikaners of the Cape. The Boers were & are still much larger than the Venda & the Pedi. In fact the total White population is not that far behind the total number of Xhosas.

"<ul> Apartheid is in its ESSENCE a hateful ideology </ul>"

This may be but that sentence is a POV & as such has no place in an encyclopedia. This is what I was pointing out. You sit there & state that that everyone who supported it were haters. When that is the sort of thing which does not belong here. Most of those who supported it had no idea about the brutality of its execution & if they did the system would have likely fallen much soner. There was mass censorship in South Africa (there still is) whereby the reality of the brutal implementation of the policies were not known to the general public.

"<ul> Apartheid was an attack on black people </ul>"

But what you keep on forgetting is that it was sold to the masses as a means of fostering separate development. Therefore your assertion is another POV.

"<ul> I am so tired of you disrespecting Black people with this arrogant attitude of yours. </ul>"

This coming from someone who supports the macro state of South Africa which oppresses the people therein. I am so tired of you disrespecting people who were mislead by their leaders. Even Mandela himself has gone on the record to state that the "Afrikaners are good people who were mislead by their leaders". I suppose he is also being "disrespectful" to Black people too. The fact that Apartheid was wrong & brutal is besides the point as that was not what I was debating & you know it. I was pointing out that not everyone who supported it knew exactly what they were supporting as it was sold to them as a means of separate development. The establishment of the macro state was the ultimate disrespect to all the the various peoples -it was even implemented without their consent.

"<ul> Every election, when it came time to do away with Apartheid, it got worse. Britain was not the blame for that </ul>"

The British created the macro state which made the problem much worse than it otherwise would have been.

"<ul> You don’t hurt someone just because someone ELSE hurt you. You don’t hurt someone just because you are having a hard time “coping” with how someone else treated you. </ul>"

No one does not. But you are neglecting cause & effect. If you force heterogeneous cultures & national groups under a single administration one should not be suprized if there arises some form of political friction / strife or madness. I think this was the goal of the British all along. This suited their divide & conquer strategy without having to take all the blame for it as they left it to the Afrikaners (which they placed in control) to do the heavy lifting in the region.

"<ul> It was an over indulgence of white superiority complex and a policy to insure that the white people of S. Africa had their “own exclusive” home. </ul>"

It was simply a means to maintain their control over the macro state that the British created in the first place. This is what you refuse to acknowledge. The British created the very state that the White elite were fighting so hard to maintain control over. And you have the nerve to marginalize the role the British played during the Apartheid era. The British in effect created the Apartheid era for their own profit.

"<ul> Afrikaaner speakers make up 6 million – 8 million of S. Africa, mostly WHITE. </ul>"

Another bold faced lie. Most Afrikaans speakers are from the Coloured communities. Now you can go ahead with another angry hate filled tirade over the fact that I revealed this corroborated & documented fact but you are looking more & more ridiculous all the time. There are about 3 million White Afrikaans speakers & at least about 4 million Coloured Afrikaans speakers. Furthermore: it is Afrikaans speakers & not Afrikaner speakers. Since you can not even get the name of the language right -it is also called die Taal by the Boers & has other dialect names amoung the Coloureds- why the hell should anyone believe a single damned thing that you have to say about it.

"<ul> any Afrikaaner speaker who is a conservative nationalist can be a boer. So cut the crap. </ul>"

No sir you cut the crap. There are conservative Afrikaners who refuse to be called Boer such as the well known Dan Roodt who is a former anti Apartheid liberal. There are Boers who are not conservative who refuse to be called Afrikaner. This is a cultural divide not a political one. The Boers are a cultural group which was usurped by the very right wing Afrikaners you claim can "be a Boer". What absolute bullshit! The conservative Afrikaners have been instrumental in oppressing the Boers all throughout their history. To say that a conservative Afrikaner can be a Boer is like saying conservative Germans can be Englishmen. Or that conservative French Quebecers can be Acadian. The Afrikaners do not even understand Boer culture or speak the dialect of the Boers -die Taal.

"<ul> just because someone has a great-great-great grandmother that was raped or duped into some slave-master sexual encounter. </ul>"

This absolute nonsense just enrages me to no end. You are spreading hate! The fact of the matter is that many White settlers married Indian or mixed race slaves. Furthermore these slaves were freed upon the marriage to the White person. It was generally the children of these marriages which passed into the White Boer nation. The children of those who had illicit sexual encounters with the mixed race people passed into the Coloured population.

This is the main reason as to why a subgroup of Coloureds were called Basters: because they were started as the "illigitimate" children of those who did not marry or legitamize their liasons.

This bullshit & hate on your part makes me so angry & irrate. You do not even do the research to learn how the Boers absorbed the non White genes & automatically assume that it must be due to having been "raped" or "duped". Do you not see why this is offensive & makes me so angry that I am now forcing myself to respond as I have lost all respect for whatever position that you might have had in the past.

The non White element came into the Boer nation as a result of intermarriage & even affairs. The first White settlers were not as racially exclusive as some of their descendents would later become.

"<ul> Johannesburg is in the middle of BOER country! </ul>"

Johannesburg was an English speaking enclave from the start. The Boers hated Johannesburg & viewed it as a sinful & evil place.

"<ul> The state ruled by its majority indigenous population is the bad guy that is stealing land from the innocent boers? </ul>"

The state is ruled by a London backed regime. Do you really think that the ANC got 70 % of the vote when all of those news reports showed so many Black people wearing DA t-shirts? Come on get real.

The state is controlled by a British elite who owns all the land, yet nary a word from you about this glarring fact. When will the land be trully given to the people?

The population has virtually no say in how the state is run. I find it ironic how you were so fast to blame the Boers for the actions of the state -despite the fact that they were margninalized after the devastation of the Anglo-Boer War - yet are so quick to infer that the state is ruled by any of its denizens. The people are not making the decisions -the regime does not even make the important decesions. The decisions are still being made by the very people who were connected to the VOC & the BEIC & other coloinal enterprises & groups.

Ron7 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So you want more pictures then.

Afrikaner boxer Cornelius Johannes Sanders.

Another picture of him.

Afrikaner boxing champion Gerrie Coetzee.

More examples.

[http://www.geocities.com/kempcountrymen/kempcomrades3.jpg Another example. Khoi feautures obvious.]

AWB leader Eugene Terreblanche.

Joost van der Westhuizen.

"<ul> What the Fu—does me being a Xhosa marrying a Malay have to do with your fu—ing line of reasoning that the Boers had to cope with the british macro-state? </ul>"

Well I do not support such insanity in the first place. Those laws were radical. Furthermore: the Boers never dealt with the macro-state as they were forced into it. The Afrikaners -who were mainly descended from those who were never Boers- were the ones who built on over the British segregationist laws termed Apartheid partially as a means of "dealing" with the macro state.

"<ul> I can’t tell where you think these Boers will end up. </ul>"

Neither can I. Though I suspect that most will simply remain where they are: after all there is also a long running movement of turning Pretoria into a new Boer Republic. Considering the fact that the largest concentration of Boers & Afrikaners is found there & the fact that they constitute an overwhelming majority in the region.

"<ul> A white enclave in the middle of SOUTH AFRICA? </ul>"

Well the fact of the matter is that there are in fact White enclaves in South Africa. Though Orania differs in that they want to be an exclusively White Afrikaans enclave with the specific purpose of protecting their culture.

"<ul> they did STEAL land and they did COMMIT ATROCITIES. </ul>"

This is pure hate speech. The Boers by far stole the least amount of land as compared to the British & the Bantus previously: remember the Bantus stole much of the Southern half of Africa from the Khoisan peoples in the first place. The Boers even obtained land treaties & bought some land while for the most part trekking into land which was vacated due to the Difaqane. The fact of the matter is that your very own ancestors also stole land & committed atrocities yet no one is denying you the right to live on their land & to practice your culture & language. What I resent is how you focus on the perceived misdeeds of the Boers while glarringly omiting the fact that other peoples stole much more land & committed far more atrocities. Whatever the Boers could be accused of doing (& by no means were they perfect): it pales in comparison to what the British & Bantus did in the region.

"<ul> I deny one solitary individual the right to have any atom, any molecule of south African dirt to set aside for a white’s only country </ul>"

Then what about the White Maurs who have done exactly this in Mauritania. Now I know they are officially considered a mix of Arab & Berber but the word is that they are basically a White people & do appear rather White in appearance. More White then some Boers. This is what I find most offensive. I find you hatred & focus against the Boers to be very one dimensional because if you really believed the rhetoric that your spout then you would be equally opposed to the White Maur government of Mauritania which conducts itself in ways worse then the old Apartheid regimes of South Africa. I do not see a word from you concerning this so I must assume that you are once again a hypocrite. According to you the various White Afrikaans peoples do not "deserve" to be independent -as the Boers once were- because of the brutal implementation of Apartheid -which the Boers themselves were not as part of as much as the Cape based Afrikaners- yet you do not issue a single word of condemnation against the White Maur regime in Mauritania who conduct themselves in ways that make the old South African Apartheid look like a picnic.

"<ul> let them have the land, they are just a little group of beleaguered innocents trying to escape the macro-state </ul>"

So are you going on the record denying the fact that they are a beleaguered & oppressed group who are feeling the coercive power of the state the most? Surely you do not need to be reminded that their culture & language are being singled out for destruction.

The fact that some of them might even be racist is besides the point. Just as the fact that some of the East Timor people were communist did not negate the oppression of the Indonesian state. These facts in themselves do not negate the oppression they they are languishing under. No one complained that the KLA in Kosovo was connected to radical Islam when the Kosovan Albanians were perceived to being oppressed by the Serbian government.

Furthermore: perhaps some of the current leadership of Orania is not so innocent considering their past connections to Apartheid promoters: but the reality is that most of the people living there are certainly much more so as their main motivation for being there in the first place is to escape the high crime rate & the growing oppression against them / their culture & language. What you are attempting to do here is to extrapolate the motivation of some of its leaders onto the whole mass of the population who relocated their for other more pressing reasons.

"<ul> That Orania is going to turn into nothing less than a hornets nest of extremists seeking to expand and “grow” and then create their own “have-have nots” with “donations” from white supremacists all over the world. </ul>"

I do not believe this for a second. For one thing the bulk of the population is far more moderate then the current leadership. Furthermore: Orania could never afford to be extreme in the least as they will want to have friendly neighbours & already do have the support of other ethnic groups who aspire to the same goal of independence or autonomy within or without South Africa proper.

"<ul> now you go into nonsense about how bad it is for a state to rule over a mini-empire? Do you think I care one way or another about that </ul>"

Well there is your problem right there. This explains why so many Americans can just let their regime go to war on false pretexts. Furthermore: my point was that the state is a mini empire as it rules over disparate established peoples & groups.

All I can say is that you Americans in particular had better start caring otherwise the whole word is going to pay a huge price for your constant imperialism.

The fact of the matter is that if the United States itself was not a macro state or mini empire there is no way that George Bush or any other president in the past or future could have the power to be so destructive at home & abroad.

"<ul> I don’t agree that they should have the same right to ancestral claims as the Zulu. </ul>"

So then you are asserting that the Zulus who stole Khoisan lands in the east have more right to land then the Boers who (under the aegis of the VOC) stole Khoisan lands in the west. This is an illogical assertion & is hypocritical. The Boers were formed as a distinct people before coming into contact with the Bantu peoples.

"<ul> The Boers are not an indigenous group just because their DISTINCTIVELY WHITE elements have been there for 100-300 years. </ul>"

The Boers are recognized at home & the world over as an indigenous group. Their culture & ethnic group was formed on Afican soil. The Boers did not exist in Europe then suddenly become transplanted in Africa. The Boers never existed in Europe. The Boers came about as a distinct cultural & ethnic group once the group itself was formed on African soil. The language they speak was even formed on African soil & is based on an archaic Dutch & Malay hybrid creole which became a distinct & separate language with influences from French -the nasalization of consonants following vowels & the double negative & some words- / Malay -which contributed a lot of words & its simplified grammar & syntax- / German -a few words- / Khoi -numerous words & perhaps the double negative- Portuguese -from sailors- & even some English & Bantu influences. While spoken in an Oriental or South Asian cadence.

<ul> Is Afrikaans not merely a simplified version of Dutch?

If you believe this, you might as well believe that French is a simplified version of Latin. While it is true that to the casual observer Afrikaans might look and sound like a watered down version of Dutch, Afrikaans actually boasts many linguistic features not found in Dutch at all. In fact, you might say that modern Dutch and modern Afrikaans are both dialects of late medieval Dutch. </ul>

From: brief intro to Afrikaans.

"<ul> Had they come without the “hiel hitler” philosophy, enslaving right along with the other whites </ul>"

Right there is another example of you hate speech. The ancestors of the Boers & even the Boers themselves never intended to be oppressive. For one thing the slaves were imported to the Cape by the VOC not the Boers. The Boers have more slave ancestors than the Bantus. What is with this Hitler phrase considering the Hitler was not around during the era & the Boers were not an authoritarian group serving a dictator. In fact if you had done your research you would have learned that the Boers were an anti authoritarian people who were always trying to get away from the autocratic rule of the VOC.

I notice how you neglect to mention how Bantus enslaved people. The same way you neglect to mention the atrocities that they committed against their Bantu neighbours.

This must be the same reason why when Robert Mugabe killed 30 000 Ndebeles in the mid 1980s you folks liked to look the other way, but when a White person so much as looks at a non White person cross-eyed the it is front page news.

"<ul> And all I want is for the exclusivity to be destroyed. Like I said, I’m totally cool with them living there, and doing whatever. But a black person should have every right to live in the same area and community. </ul>"

Then take it up with them. All I have pointed out is that it is up to the Oranians themselves to decide on ploitical matters.

"<ul> I am banking on the blacks to win out. </ul>"

Once again you are using a Western based view of disparate peoples. To view people in such stark one dimensional terms as "White" or "Black" is to view them is utterly racist terms. The various Black people have distinct & proud histories & cultures. But you are attempting to redefine them as simply "Black" which is analogous to asserting that the White people in Europe can simply be viewed as "White" thereby negating the stark cultural & national differences. Also I find it interesting how you want the "Black" settlers to "win" while overlooking the yellow-brown Khoisan descended peoples of the Northern Cape who are the aboriginal people of the entire region.

"<ul> So these “white rights” or “boer rights” are at the expense of black people. </ul>"

But it is not. For one thing the town of Orania was specifically chosen for the reason that it is not located in a Black region. The region is sparsely populated & mainly by those who are either from the Coloured groups or are Khoisan related.

"<ul> the middle of S. Africa, a historically black country </ul>"

No it is not. South Africa is a historically yellow-brown Khoisan region.

With a long hitory of White peoples there as well.

"<ul> Do not think one second I will ever be distracted from these facts. </ul>"

This is a joke as you do not even admit certain facts or are even aware of the facts. You have been distorting & have been caught being ignorant of the facts on so many occasions that you should be embarrassed. Instead of harassing myself right here on my own talk page & turning into an anti Boer propaganda outlet: I would suggest that you actually go learn the facts concerning the region in question.

"<ul> For you to be so drawn into the Boers and their existence (funny since they started as an offshot of dutch people living in the cape) </ul>"

Not quite. While the first proto Boers were servants of the VOC from Holland & northern Europe: the fact of the matter is that the other elements such as the French Huguenots & even the slight non White influence contributed significantly to their culture & composition.

"<ul> which you feel is threatened over and over and over, (yet their population keeps growing, not shrinking). </ul>"

I do not "feel". I noted that throughout their history that they were oppressed & faced significant hardships. The Boers population was indeed shrunk after the Anglo-Boer War when so many children died in the concentration camps.

I doubt that you would appreciate it very much if I asserted that you "feel" that the Black Americans have been oppressed in the past. You would be right to call it hate speech yet for some sanctimonious reason you think that you can get away with the same sort of hate speech against the Boer people.

The historical record notes how the Boer people have been oppressed & even threatened over & over. I even read an encyclopedic article in my local library a while ago which stated that the Afrikaners & the Black Americans have a lot in common but that neither side would likely be willing to readily admit it.

Furthermore: the Boer population is indeed once again shrinking due to the farm killings as well as emigration.

"<ul> now with your interest in including Khoi and other colored folk in as Boer </ul>"

This is what I read for myself at the Freedom Front / Vryheidsfront forums. Once again do not shoot the messenger.

"<ul> But the Boers are the youngest “ethnic” group out there. </ul>"

Not in the least. The Australians are even younger than the Boers.

"<ul> All these years, you notice that the farmers never paid an equitable wage.</ul>"

The same way that you folks do not pay an equitable wage to the Mexican "un-documented" workers. The farmers were simply taking advantage of a situation. Cheap labour is not moral but this is the economic paradigm that much of the world has been forced under. Once again I find it most sanctimonious of you to nitpick about what some Boer farmers did while never mentioning let alone even rectifying the exact same situation which is occurring within your own borders at this very moment in time. Stop harassing the Boers & try to start calling your own exploiters on their exploitation.

"<ul> They paid their black farm hands less than the white ones. </ul>"

There are a lot of Americans right there in your own backyard who pay the Mexican & other Latin Americans less than the White workers too. So do not be so sanctimonious about what the Boer farmers might have done. I had to laugh when I saw all of those illegal aliens mostly from Mexico protesting in California & throughout much of the United States back in March & April. It looks like you folks are going to go through the same marginalization soon that the Afrikaans peoples are going through right now. I wonder if you or others will become hypocritical & attempt to set up an English only enclave in the middle of the United States "an historically Amerindian country". Once again this is just too ironic.

"<ul> n addition, the technological experience with the farming equipment they never allowed the black workers to learn, and instead the black farmers have always had a disadvantage. </ul>"

There were well educated farmers & people in general in some of the various so called Bantu homelands.

"<ul> protecting all the farmers from violence and prosecuting those who attempt to or who attack any farmers black or white. </ul>"

Good luck. So far there have been barely any arrests made & the South African government is notorious for its lax judicial system & for periodically releasing criminals from prison due to over crowding.

"<ul> But all this talk about you and the Boers “hardy folks” and “London backed Xhosa” is a sham. </ul>"

The Boers were indeed descended from the hardy folks who lived a semi nomadic life on the eastern Cape frontier. Look it up. The Xhosa radical ruling regime is indeed backed by the London bankers. How the hell do you think the ANC got into power & who do you think was their main source of financing.

"<ul> No one is talking about the Boers being killed off. </ul>"

Once again you do not do your research.

Kill the Boer, kill the farmer.

Furthermore: African National Congress Councillor Mzukizi Gaba was quoted in the newspapers as stating: " When Mandela dies we will kill you whites like flies." on November 10 1997.

Councillor slammed for racial remarks.

This was in reference to the well known & long standing rumour that when Mandela dies, there will be a planned attack against White people in which a significant number will be killed.

"<ul> free people from a dictatorship </ul>"

The current dictatorship is not much better & is still being run by the rump of the British Empire & the London bankers.

"<ul> Now you have reinvented the Boer, now he is a mulatto of sorts who is more Khoi than white </ul>"

I never stated that. Once again you are distorting. What I pointed out was that they are partially related to the local aboriginal group.

Furthermore: I never once said the the Oranians admit to their Khoi heritage. Once again you are taking my valid points out of context.

Furthermore I did not reinvent the Boer. The Afrikaner nationalists did that even to themselves when they began to espuouse a racist ideology & platform.

<ul> According to some scholars on slavery in South Africa, the number of slaves from India exceeded those from Indonesia or Africa.

The Dutch settlers married some Indian women. There was extensive miscegenation and many settlers, in their old age, formally married their mistresses and baptised their children. As a result, numerous Afrikaner families can trace their ancestry to Indians and perhaps half the Coloured people have Indian ancestry.

And the Indians were also the most prominent in the slave resistance and revolts.

I hope that the Afrikaners will rediscover their history so that we in India can establish fruitful relations with them. </ul>

From: E. S. Reddy.

Now all I can say is that if you have a problem with what these researchers are stating than take it up with them & stop attacking the messenger of the said public results.

"<ul> You see Europeans, nothing but Europeans. </ul>"

The White Africans are not Europeans. This is tantamount to calling White Canadians "Europeans". This is just not the case.

"<ul> Anyone who feels that Apartheid was the best way to deal with other people, especially knowing what it was doing to the other people. </ul>"

These are the distortions that I resent the most. I never believed that the Apartheid laws was the best way to deal with the situation. I have never supported them. What I pointed out was that you were being POV to claim that Apartheid was supported by only people who hated when the fact of the matter is that it was sold to the masses as separate development.

"<ul> Now at this point I could go on and on, but yes I hate to see people thinking like you do. </ul>"

But this is what infuriates me the most. I do not even think this way! I was attempting to counter your assertions that only peopled who hated supported Apartheid when the reality is that many people became supporters of it due to other more pressing considerations. This is not my view but it was the view of a great many of its supporters.

"<ul> There was nothing to “deal with” Ron. Black people are not people you have to ‘deal with’ </ul>"

Good grief! you are a demagogue of the worst sort. I never once said that Black people had to be "dealt" with. What I pointed out was that may people who supported Apartheid did so because they viewed it as a means to deal with the macro state which forced a number of national & ethnic groups under a single administration for the first time in most of their lives. It was not the "Black people" that the laws were designed (or at least hoped) to deal with. The laws were designed with the hope of dealing with the arbitrary borders that were imposed by Britain onto the whole region.

"<ul> The white people had to deal with the inconvenience of Black people being around them. Sickening philosophy. </ul>"

Stop demagoging. The regime was attempting to deal with the arbitrary borders of the macro state not with any peoples in question.

Final note. I wish you would makes paragraphs when offloading such offensive & ignorant claptrap.

Though I would rather you simply learn the truth & do some serious research rather than bloviate your ignorance & hatred here on a page you were never invited to post.

Ron7 05:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Boer people would still exist as a distinct group even if their White component were only a small percentage of their heritage for the simple reason that the Boers were the peoples who trekked eastwards while the Coloureds were those who were descended from the imported slaves who mainly remained in the west.

Picture of a couple of Afrikaners with non White features.

The significance of this picture is that the man in the middle is Pieter Mulder the leader of the Freedom Front. The political party which promotes the Volkstaat concept & Afrikaans self determination. Therefore your assertion that the Boers & Afrikaners who have non White features are not accepted as Boers or Afrikaners by other Boers or Afrikaners -even those who promote the Volkstaat concept- is erroneous.

The 11 pictures -which you cite in the link- of an entire community consisting of 700 people is not exactly a representative snap shot.

Considering the fact that the Boers & Afrikaners have on average 5 - 7 % non White genses this means that there are a significant number of ancestors who are of non White origin.

The Boers of the Republics were becoming intuitive prior to the outbreak of the Anglo-Boer War. This has prompted one to wonder whether the real or at least one of the main reasons behind the drive to war against these humble pastoralists & the subsequent destruction of this culture was not this fact.

<ul>      Probably the most important and widespread traditional religious beliefs was the belief in second sight or the gift of prophecy, usually attributed to individuals born with a caul who were thought to possess extraordinary psychic powers. Such people were said to be able to foresee droughts and disasters as well as weddings and births. Telepathic gifts were also attributed to certain farm people. One prominent professor emeritus told me that, in 1909, he had witnessed a fellow student communicating with his brother by telepathy over several hundred miles. The brothers had an agreement that after lunch every Sunday they would walk out into the veld, sit under a tree and seek to establish telepathic contact. In this way the student said he learned of doings at home far quicker than by letter. Such a gift, the professor maintained, had been common among country people in his youth although few urban Afrikaners he said possessed the gift of telepathy today.

The best known example of a man born with the caul is Nicholaas van Rensburg, the "prophet" of Lichtenburg. Van Rensburg is said to have had his first "vision" at the age of seven in 1869, when he assured his mother that she need not fear an attack by local Africans during her husband's absence. He gained his reputation as a "seer" during the second Anglo-Boer War, credited with warning commandoes of approaching British troops, and with having a vision in which he saw "The Red Bull wounded and defeated." This vision was held to predict General de la Rey's victory over British troops at the battle of Tweebos on 7 March 1902.

In July 1913 he had a vision of "fire in Europe" and later had a vision of two great bulls fighting a struggle of life and  death. Their colours were read and grey, and the red one was trampled in the dust.... </ul>

From: Traditional Boer Religion.

Considering that the Spanish & other European colonial powers decimated other indigenous cultures in part due to their "intuitive" religions & customs in the past.

The van Rensburg prophecy actually also states that White people from all over the world will pour into the region to help the Boers when they come under attack.

The fact that Johannesburg compromised the independence of the Transvaal Republic due to the influx of English speakers & other outlanders should serve as a poignant example why the Oranians feel they must have an exclusive policy restricting who can become a part of their private sector project.

Ron7 06:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to continue to demonstrate certain points. The following map even shows how the Voortrekkers trekked away from the Xhosas & specifically into de-populated regions north of the Orange & Vaal Rivers.

"<ul> Upheaval in black Southern Africa wasn't only generated by the white invaders. The difaqane ('forced migration' in Sotho) or mfeqane ('the crushing' in Zulu) was a time of immense upheaval and suffering, a terror campaign masterminded by the Zulu chief, Shaka. This wave of disruption through Southern Africa left some tribes wiped out, others enslaved and the lucky ones running. Into this chaos disgruntled Boers stomped on their Great Trek away from British rule in search of freedom. Most of the pastures the Boers trekked through were deserted or inhabited by traumatised refugees. </ul>"

From: South Africa History.

To further prove that the Apartheid laws were not passed simply by people who "hated": the following excerpt comes straight from a famous anti Apartheid Afrikaner intellectual named Hermann Giliomee who notes that the goal of Apartheid was not domination (which was the de facto result) but survival.

"<ul> Giliomee also presents novel interpretations of both the onset of apartheid and of the government’s decision to abandon it. The sources of apartheid were multiple and complex. The idea had developed in the Dutch Reformed Church in the 1920s. Debating its missionary efforts toward the country’s African and Coloured communities, the Church concluded that these were separate communities in need of separate churches. This concept was soon extended to education, as the churches were largely responsible for the education of Africans, and Afrikaner intellectuals pressed to have the idea extended to secular domains. From this perspective apartheid did not derive primarily from racist motives: while not ignoring these, Giliomee argues that it sought not so much racial superiority over Africans as racial survival against Africans: 'Afrikaner nationalists argued that their survival as a volk was inseparable from maintaining racial exclusivity, and that apartheid was the only policy that systematically pursued that end. But apartheid with its racist outcomes was not a goal in itself; political survival was' (p. 470). Apartheid also contained an element of trusteeship for Africans. Discussing the idea in Parliament, future Prime Minister Daniel Malan argued, 'I do not use the term ‘segregation,’ because it has been interpreted as a fencing off, but rather ‘apartheid,’ which will give the various races the opportunity of uplifting themselves on the basis of what is their own' (quoted at p. 475). </ul>"

From: International Third World Studies.

Apartheid was a disaster & was wrong, but petulantly stating that it was implemented by only those who "hated" is certainly erroneous & does not belong in an encycolpedic article.

The following excerpt counters your other erroneous contention (there were in fact many) that the Boers were not influenced by or had incorporated any of the aboriginal Khoisan customs.

Futhermore: the Afrikaans language incorporates a number of words of Khoisan origin & other gramatical features.

"<ul> The early colonists who settled as farmers were soon to move away from the control of the Dutch East India Company based in Cape Town and become nomadic cattle farmers. Their lifestyle required a distinct architecture. In their wanderings they met with the Khoi-Khoi, adopting some of their building techniques. The name and style of the hartbeeshuis, a thatched A-frame hut one can still see at Puntjie in the Western Cape, shows a conjoining of the indigenous with the European: harub is the Khoi term for the reeds used as thatch, biesies the same term in the Dutch vernacular; hence harubbies, adulterated to hartbees, with 'huis' meaning 'house'. It is a traditional European style, adapted with the bowed poles of the transportable Khoi matjieshuis. </ul>"

From: Architecture.

The following notes how the Afrikaners & Boers consider themselves African not European. The ancestors of the Boers & Afrikaners were exiled from Europe & came to be called the White Tribe of Africa.

"<ul> It is important to note that Afrikaners consider themselves Africans, not Europeans. Interestingly, Afrikaners and South African blacks share much of the same folklore, and indeed, in a further detail which illustrates the racial complexity of South Africa, many of those shared traditions can be traced to Asian roots. There are, for instance, goel or ghost stories originated by indentured laborers from India and Malaysia, tales adopted by whites and blacks alike. Many of these stories revolve around the harsh southeastern wind, known as the 'Cape Doctor,' that blows over Cape Town in the summertime. In contrast to Afrikaners, English South Africans have a cultural heritage more tied to that of Great Britain—a heritage shared by British, Australians, New Zealanders, and Canadians—rather than to that of southern Africa. </ul>"

From section under: Traditions Customs & Beliefs.

The following post from a Mike to the author of the African Crisis website puts it in highly detailed terms just how African the White Africans are & how they are not even considered European not just among themselves but also not even in Europe.

<ul>

From the News Archives of: WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org

Date & Time Posted: 8/22/2006

The Whites of Africa are African and not European.

Dear Jan

Directly or indirectly, us white Africans are being “encouraged” to leave Africa and “go home to Europe”. We are continually being told we don’t belong in Africa.

What I want to say is quite obvious. The whites of Africa need to get the following two facts into their minds as well as the minds of those who would like to see us go, namely:

1. Most of us are here to stay whether we like it or not. 2. This is also our country and we aren’t leaving.

The acceptance of these facts should give us the resolve to stand and fight for what is ours. We need to consider the following:

1.Where in Europe would we go to? The average white in Africa has no connection to any country or family in Europe. We are not Europeans – we are White Africans. The overwhelming majority of us were born on African soil of African parents, African grandparents, African great-grandparents, African great great-grand parents and even a few generations more. At the very best, most of us only have distant ancestors from Europe. These ancestors came from all over Europe and intermarried with each other. My distant European ancestors, for example, were from England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, France, Denmark and goodness knows where else. All of my close ancestors came from South Africa – their mortal remains rest in African soil.

2. No European country wants us: Gerald L’Ange, author of the book “The white Africans from colonisation to liberation” points out and I quote “whites who have lived in Africa for more than two generations will, if they seek to return to Europe, find they are treated like any other alien immigrants”. “In effect, the ancestral door has been well and truly slammed”. Furthermore, he says “Afrikaners can no more pass through the eye of a needle than return to a Europe their ancestors left centuries ago”.

3. Our distant ancestors were the surplus peoples of Europe: There was no place for them in Europe due to overpopulation, economic hardships, religious persecution and wars of those times. Europe most certainly doesn’t see any need for us to come back. Whites from Africa should forever banish the illusion that Europe, or any other country will take us in. Let it not be forgotten how they have collectively demonised us in the past.

4. European Citizens, in large numbers, are not welcome back in Europe either: A few years ago when the farm seizures started in Zimbabwe, Britain made it very clear the last thing it wanted was to have 60,000 Zimbabweans with British passports arriving at London Heathrow.

5. The whites of Africa somehow have a misplaced loyalty to a Europe who feel nothing for us: White Africans have run to help in Europe’s wars but that same Europe have turned their backs on us. Any help coming from Europe, or any other country these days is certainly not intended for the whites of Africa.

6. The whites of Africa are very different from the whites of Europe: I have just returned home from living in Europe, and I can tell you we are very different from them. Speaking in general terms, we have retained most of the values they no longer hold dear.

So, and what has been said so many times on this website before, the whites of South Africa need to unite in order to survive. We are here to stay. There are no other options open to us. </ul>

From: African Crisis.

The following reports on a poll which shows that a greater percentage of Black people are in favour of separate development compared to a lesser percentage of the White population.

<ul> The survey found that less than a quarter of blacks said they understood the customs and ways of whites, [and yet blacks decide unilaterally what is good for whites in their everyday lives]. Roughly half of the whites, colored and Asians asserted they did not understand blacks. Just over half the blacks found it hard to imagine ever being friends with a white person. For whites, the figure was 19 percent. Equal proportions of blacks and whites - just under a fifth of each group - thought South Africa would be a better place without the other race.

Half of the white respondents, and a "somewhat surprising" 36 percent of blacks, believed that though there had been abuses, the ideas behind apartheid were "basically good".

"This most likely means that the 'separate development' aspects of apartheid are endorsed, rather than the idea that a racial hierarchy is acceptable," said the authors.

[Under apartheid, black and white officials worked closely together to develop the rural areas under the auspices of several state development corporations, which are now all defunct. Some of the major agricultural projects of these development corporations, which provided a livelihood to thousands of rural families, are now being liquidated]

The survey said it was consequently not surprising to find that many South Africans believed the struggle to preserve apartheid was just.

The finding that a greater proportion of blacks than whites (40 percent to 34 percent) held this view was "unexpected", perhaps indicating that people accepted that each racial community had the right to a separate existence.

[It also indicates that black grievances were grossly exaggerated by the media under the previous regime. "If they were not unhappy about their lot, they should have been."]

"South Africans of every race accepted what was probably a central conclusion of the TRC - that those who struggled for and against apartheid committed horrible abuses, and the differences between blacks and whites on this issue were insignificant."

The fact that 40% of blacks held the view that each racial community has the right to a separate existence, illustrate the folly of forcing a western style national state democracy onto a country so deeply divided along racial lines. Too much power was handed over too soon to too few. This is a bad formula for a country like South Africa with its diverse population. It may take decades to come to grips with itself as Nigeria is still unable to do. </ul>

From: South Africa: Democracy That Could've Been.

This is just the tip of the iceberg which counters your erroneous & down right hateful assertions. Do some research & learn the facts. The Boers & Afrikaners should not be made into the scapegoats of the region.

Ron7 17:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

origins of names
Hi. I noticed you've added a whole bunch of "origins of the name" sections to various articles on real people. While the information may be factually correct and correctly cited, IMHO I don't think that type of info belongs in an article about a person. If it was an article on the name itself on the other hand, I could see the point of it. You don't read up on Piet Retief to find the origins of the Retief name; similarly you wouldn't insert info on the origin of Smith into an article about any particular person whose surname happens to be Smith. Please lemme know what your take on this is; I'd like to revert those edits. Thanks! Zunaid 10:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

French Huguenot surnames of Afrikaans individuals.
Hi Zunaid-

I just read your message concerning the fact that I have recently added information in articles about the French Huguenot progenitors of a number of Afrikaans individuals. The point is no so much about the name itself but to point out the fact that the individuals in question are direct descendents of French Huguenots.

I think it is important to point out the origins of those Afrikaans names of French Huguenot origin as a number of them are not spelled in the original French manner. I have read the entire book in question (Ces Francais Qui Ont Fait L'Afrique Du Sud) which includes pages of information noting the first French Huguenot ancestors of the Afrikaners & the manner in which some of those names are spelled today ie: some acquired Dutch spelling. What I am really trying to do is to point out the fact that the people in question are direct descendents of French Huguenots & post the names of the ancestors. This is rather relevant.

The surnames of a great number of Afrikaans people goes back to an original French Huguenot ancestor who arrived in the Cape shortly after the Dutch. This is the main point. Pointing out the progenitor of the individual's name in the region is important especially when they are from such a distinct background & spoke a different language than the first settlers of the region. Most people in the west tend to erroneously presume that Afrikaans people are descended from just Dutch people while overlooking the fact that most are not due to the large numbers of French & German arrivals. Therefore I think it is relevant to include information pertaining to the progenitors of the French names (& perhaps German names though I am more knowledgeable on the French origins) of the Afrikaans surnames in the articles concerning the various individuals in question.

When reading up on Piet Joubert for example: I think it is relevant & important to mention the fact that he is a direct descendent of Pierre Joubert who was from Provence France. When reading up on Francois Pienaar (whose both names are French) I think it is relevant to mention the fact that his name is derived from Pinard & who his original French ancestor was. When reading up on anyone with the Viljoen name: I think it is rather important to mention that it is derived from Francois Villion who was the first French Huguenot ancestor to arrive at the Cape in 1671. When reading up on F W De Klerk I think it is important to mention the fact that his name is derived from Le Clerc. -which is common here in Quebec. I was inspired to contribute this information concerning these individuals in part from learning long ago that the famous American Revulotionary patriot Paul Revere was descended from a French Huguenot named Apollos Rivoire which is mentioned in the very article on him in this encyclopedia as a matter of fact.

Furthermore: considering that the Boer & Afrikaner people have a high percentage of French ancestry with numerous French first names as well as surnames: I thought that this interesting fact should be included in the articles of those who are the direct descendents of French Huguenots. I did not think that this was the least bit controversial.

Ron7

Apartheid was essentially a good idea which went wrong
Due to the conservative Christian ideas of the Afrikaners and since it is clearly stated in the Bible that Jahpethians (i.e. whites) breeding with Hamites (i.e. blacks) is against God's word seperate homelands was ideal but the Boers ended up dominating the blacks and it all got very unequal but the fact that inter- racial marraige is frowned upon is alright because it's supported by the Bible and so keeping seperate was probably very wise for any Christian heading for heaven.

So Ron7 is not putting pro- Apartheid statements on any wiki pages and the fact that most of the articles relating to white South Africans are quite derogatory needs to be addressed, don't deny that there's a horrible prejudice against the Afrikaner race because some people don't agree with Apartheid.

82.20.49.215 20:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The first problem here is your erroneous assertion insinuating a presumed link between Apartheid & the Afrikaners. The term Apartheid was just the Afrikaans word for the racial segregationist policies existing at the time - coined in 1917 during an interview with an Afrikaans public official - which were in fact enacted by the British Colonial regimes in the Cape & Natal dating from the late 19th cent. Apartheid got unfairly equated with Afrikaans folks due to the election of D F Malan during the late 1940s who ran on a campaign of expanding & reforming Apartheid [ which already existed in the law ] in an attempt at off-setting the oppressive features as enacted by the previous British regimes like the Pass Laws & the top down management style inherent in those British laws. The post 1940s phase of Apartheid was called Grand Apartheid as well as Separate Development but the legal reality of Apartheid was much older than that & was initiated by the various British Colonial regimes. The main difference with this phase of Apartheid was that it was strengthened & allowed for the independence of numerous traditional tribal lands four of which did obtain sovereignty as independent States but were only recognized amongst themselves & South Africa proper but not by any other country in the world due to the increasing unstable & unviable nature of maintaining the Apartheid policies within South Africa proper as the resident non-White population within South Africa proper were agitating for political rights within South Africa proper.

The next problem you make is the erroneous presumption that the Afrikaners are a monolithic group. The fact of the matter is that the term Afrikaner was employed to encompass all White Afrikaans speakers some time after the Anglo-Boer War. The term Afrikaner began to be used among the Cape Dutch of the Western Cape starting in 1875 during an Afrikaans language rights movement in Paarl which was a town on the edges of the Cape Dutch community of Southern Africa. The Cape Dutch began calling themselves Afrikaners after the language they spoke & named Afrikaans. This was all happening at a time when the Boers were independent in their own Boer Republics or were still living on the Cape frontier away from the Cape Dutch of the Western Cape & referred to their dialect as "die taal" or Boeretaal named after the Boerevolk. The Boers might have also periodically referred to themselves as Afrikaners but they only used this term in a geographical conext meaning that they saw themselves as Africans [ which is all Afrikaner really means ergo everyone in Africa is an Afrikaner ] & not as being part of the same Afrikaans speaking group in the Western Cape. Canadian Professor Wallace Mills & other authors have noted that the Boers who developed on the Cape frontier saw themselves as & were in fact different from the Cape Dutch community at the Western Cape. This fact is vitally important due to the following facts.

The Cape Dutch Afrikaners are & have always been the largest segment of the so called Afrikaners as the Boer segment is not much more than 37 % of the total so called Afrikaner population. Therefore when one refers to the Boers as "Afrikaners" as well one is playing into a device which marginalizes the actual Boer folk. A lot of Westerners erroneously presume that all of the Afrikaners come from the Boers when this presumption is an impossibility as most Afrikaners are from the more numerous Cape Dutch & therefore do not have Boer heritage or Boer cultural roots. This has demonstrated the Afrikaner domination of the Boer people all throughout the 20th cent & most notably when the Boers were prevented by the Afrikaners from restoring their old republics during the 1940s. The Afrikaner establishment organized during the 1940s & broke up the Boer Republican movement to restore the Boer Republics as the Afrikaner establishment would lose control of the macro State of South Africa they inherited from the British. After the Anglo-Boer War some pro-British Boers were promoted into positions of power but the Cape Dutch Afrikaners gained the most as they inherited the macro State of South Africa due to their larger numbers over the Boers & began to dominate & co-opt the Boers in a political context.

Therefore due to this erroneous conflation the Boer people are often blamed for Apartheid when in fact it was implemented by the British & later expanded upon by the Cape Dutch Afrikaners. Most Westerners have not studied this topic closely enough & have not figured out that very few actual Boers had anything to do with the implementation of Apartheid as demonstrated by the following facts. D F Malan was a Cape Dutch Afrikaner not a Boer. Same with John Vorster. Hendrik Verwoerd credited with being the architect of Grand Apartheid or Separate Development was Dutch born & raised as an Afrikaner. The only actual Boer who had anything to do with the implementation of Apartheid was Hans Strijdom who died four years after taking office as Prime Minister [ some say rather mysteriously ] due to supporting [ according to the speculation ] the idea of restoring the old Boer Republics. Hans Strijdom was even opposed by his predecessor D F Malan who favoured N C Havenga the former leader of the Afrikaner Party before joining the National Party under D F Malan. Therefore conflating the Boers with the Cape Dutch Afrikaners is unjust to say the least as the Afrikaners dominated & even subjugated & subverted the Boers & had a more neo imperial political approach than the Boers ever had as the Boers were notable for their republican [ true republican not the false republicanism of the Afrikaner Nationalists ] & limited government political approach. Historians often wonder how the democratic freedom oriented Boers of the 19th cent ever turned into the dictators of the 20th cent without ever stopping to realize that those Afrikaners of the 20th cent were not from the Boer group. Most of the actual Boers were subservient to the agenda of the Afrikaners & most Boers were conditioned since childhood to view themselves as Afrikaner as well.

The Boer people were & are still to a significant extent a distinct ethnic / cultural entity to that of the Afrikaners. Historians have classified the language of the Boers as Eastern Border Afrikaans named after the Cape frontier where the Boers developed. The Afrikaners were able to remove the dialect of the Boers during the 1920s & replace it with their Afrikaans dialect but the Boers still do speak a regional variation of their old dialect. There are some anti-Boer apologists who advance the spurious notion that the Boers no longer exist due to some slight intermarriage between the two groups but this is a demonstrable canard as assimilation tends to favour the group one is being assimilated into & tends not to create a new hybrid group. Regardless: the two groups are still relatively intact distinct entities who often still have different outlooks as can be seen with the tendency for the Boers to want to achieve self determination - which is a centuries old struggle dating from at least 1795 - while most of the Cape Dutch Afrikaners have little interest in such. The Boer people have also suffered through much harsher experiences through most of their history from their beginnings on the Cape frontier to their treatment in the British concentration camps during the second Anglo-Boer War in which close to 50 % of the total Boer child population died in the camps. People sometimes erroneously assert that this was the attempted destruction of the "Afrikaner" Nation when in fact if every single Boer had died: there would still have been Afrikaners of the Western Cape. The experiences in the concentration camps was the attempted destruction of the Boer Nation.

Ron7 (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The Boervolk have a right to a homeland under 'INTERNATIONAL LAW'
I won't go into detail but I'd like to direct you to this website and let you read about the treaties regarding their homeland, which they never got. As for Boers moving to Europe, why should they, Africa is as much there land as Britain is someone of Pakistani extraction, if they should be re- patriated then so should all Indians and Pakistanis and blacks in Britain. The blacks are savage towards the Boervolk.

www.awb.co.za

The above site is very informative on the details of the treaties that the British signed, promising the Boervolk a homeland, they have a right to be a bit annoyed.

82.20.49.215 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all the Boers had homelands / republics in the past. The British signed the Sand River Convention on Jan 17 1852 -granting independence to the Boers north of the Vaal Rivers- & the Orange River Convention on Feb 23 1854 -granting independence to the Boers north of the Orange River. These Boer republics were conquered at the conclusion of the second Anglo-Boer War. I am well aware of the Boers right under international law to an indpendent homeland & their inherent right to self determination. If you read some of what is posted above you would know this. I was just involved in 06 with a long discussion / debate with an angry Black Nationalist over this issue some of which is still posted above. I was also debating him in the Orania talk page. I noticed that he up & left once the discussion got too informative when I hit him with a barrage of facts.

Ron7 20:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hottentots and the Boers
Ron. I remember having a discussion with you over Boer ancestry on the Boer talk page, before it got way out of hand and became a political debate about the AWB between me and that communist Deon Steyn.

However, I researched it further and found that a Hottentot woman married an early Dutch settler called Pieter Van Meerhof. They had five daughters together, who married into the Van Rensburg bloodline and several others.

This means that any bloodline that married into those lines has blacks in it's ancestry.

Therefore aren't the Boers mixeds?

82.20.51.180 17:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Well the Boers are not quite "mixeds" but they do have a signifiant percentage of mixed ancestry of which was mainly Indian / Khoi & Malay origin - not Black.

 * The first documented marriage between European settler and a slave was in 1656 at the Cape.  Jan Woutersz married Catherine of Bengal  – Jan was a caretaker on Robben Island and the family lived without discrimination in the community. ] From: Genealogy of Afrikaners From Alistair Boddy-Evans.

The Boers are considered White as they are mostly of White decent & generally have Caucasoid features. There are also significant numbers of White Americans who have some mixed race ancestry as well. Those non White & mixed race ancestors of the Boers did not amalgamate on a large scale hence those ancestors were absorbed into the group.

Ron7 (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Great page
nice to know you're into boer, im one too but i moved to england in 2000 - anyway, how come your native language is english and you live in quebec? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.180.50 (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to know that you like this page: it is mainly a response to other peoples inquiries & contributions. I arrived in Quebec as an English speaker when I was a young child. There is a significant English speaking population in Quebec - particularly on the West Island of Montreal- which consists of about 7 - 9 % of the total population.

Ron7 (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Infobox Ethnic Group
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

'''I'm assuming you created the template elsewhere in the meanttime. I came accross it, and in its current state it's simply a template-loop. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)'''

Thanks!
Thanks for that bit of help! Now do you mean that Swellendam's and Graaff-Reinet's flag was the same as the Netherland's? Plus I guess you're talking about User:ChrisDHDR/Sandbox/Territorial evolution South Africa, but how in the world did you get there? There's nothing wrong with it (if that's what you understand), but it's just that it's this little isolated sub-page that I hadn't yet moved into the template namespace, so that the fact that anyone except me knows about it boggles my mind.

But I'm really happy that you contacted me since you seem to know a great deal about the subject. Now I really battled to get that all done, what with all the contradicting dates, holes in information, and mixing-ups; so could you give it a read-over? Certain things, especially about annexations to Natal, are a bit fuzzy, so I'm sure you'll be able to shed a bit of light. Thanks, Chris DHDR 18:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Afrikaner intro
I removed your recent edit to the Afrikaner article. Of course, what you wrote is true, the Boers and Afrikaners are in fact two different peoples, but I reckoned for the sake of simplicity, the article would align the two peoples as the one group, as by in large, most people consider the two groups as being essentially of the same stock. The differentiation between the Boers and Afrikaners is discussed further into the article. The introduction should be basic, factual and brief, the complexities between the groups are discussed later in the article. In this way we're not confusing people early on. User talk:TerritorialWaters 20:25, 7 Jan 2010 (UTC)

A new draft you might be interested in
Hi Ron7, I have just read your excellent post at Talk:Afrikaner, so I thought you might be interested in helping to write Draft:Afrikaner identity politics. It was originally a Userspace draft I started but as I just don't currently have time to do it justice I have moved it to the new Draft-space where all interested editors are welcome to work on it. I posted a general invitation to WikiProject South Africa but got no takers, so now I'm issuing personal invitations. I hope you will be interested. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ron7