Saturday, January 16, 2010

Hit piece on December 16 gathering at the Voortrekker Monument.

The New York Times published a predictable hit piece article this past December pertaining to the fact that many Voortrekker descendents still gather at the Voortrekker Monument on December 16 each year to commemorate the vow their ancestors made with God for protection at a time when a war campaign under Dingaan's Zulu army was attempting to eradicate the entire Boer population camped out in Natal after the Boers had thought they obtained legal permission to settle the region. The Times attempts to inject racism into the gathering & event itself while neglecting to truly note the significance of the date which is grounded in thanksgiving within a religious context. Few would begrudge those Texans who commemorate the Battle of the Alamo therefore it is rank hypocrisy that anyone would begrudge the Boers for commemorating a similar battle of defense from an attacking military-oriented contingent. 

There were a number of erroneous points made within the article as well. The worst being the erroneous assertion that the battle was over conquest when it was simply a battle of defensive survival against rather overwhelming odds against the Boers. Hence the reason why many Boers continue to commemorate this date as it is simply a mater of thanksgiving to them for being spared the certain death that appeared imminent at the outset of the first Zulu attacks against the Boer civilians at Saailaager & Bloukrans. The ray of sunlight shining on the cenotaph is supposed to symbolize the vow that was taken to God for protection not about some supposed "will that the land be theirs." [ which land? the Natalia Republic which was founded on the vacant land Dingaan initially promised to the Boers (among others) was ultimately abandoned after the British conquered it ] This is classic hit piece distortion.

The Boers are not just "the descendants of white settlers" as they are in fact the descendants of refugees who were seeking refuge in Holland long before being sent to the Cape as servants for the Dutch East India Co. This article attempts to blame the Boers for the development of their own existence & to marginalize their birth in Africa by asserting that they are just descended from a bunch of generic White settlers & purposely omitting their semi nomadic origins on the Cape frontier. Afrikaans author Brian Du Toit notes that: [ The Boers had a tradition of trekking. Boer society was born on the frontiers of white settlement and on the outskirts of civilization. ] This fact moves them out of the realm of generic "settlers" into the realm of a homegrown group tied to the local landscape of the region.

The article just mentions in passing the brutal massacre of the Boers by the Zulus [ "hundreds of deaths at the hands of the Zulus." ] which preceded the battle at Nacome River of December 16 which is an important point for context. As too many Westerners have an erroneous impression of the event & often do not realize that this event did not happen in a vacuum & that it was the conclusion of a war campaign started by the Zulus in their then attempts under Dingaan at eradicating the Natal Boers & perhaps even beyond. This is probably why it is often erroneously viewed as "a conquest" because those who presume such are ignorant of the full story which preceded it & are also ignorant to the fact that the Boers did not conquer the Zulus nor Zululand but simply repelled a Zulu attack on their laager in Natal.

Though the first problem with this article of course is the obvious perpetuation of the Afrikaner appropriation of Boer history as this vow & entire event is part of Boer history while the yet to be named Afrikaners of the Western Cape ridiculed the Boers of the frontier for wanting to "leave civilization behind" & thought that their trekking migrations into the interior [ later called the Great Trek by Afrikaner historians who used this event as part of a regiment to appropriate & co-opt the conquered Boer people ] would amount to nothing or whose participants would all end up dead. The Boer people are an anthropologically distinct ethno cultural group / entity from the bulk of the macro Afrikaner population. This is because the Boers are the direct descendents of the Trekboers who began to trek inland starting during the late 1600s & all throughout the 1700s. [ 1 ] While the vast majority of the macro group called Afrikaners are descended from the Afrikaans speakers who developed in the south western Cape region & were often known as the Cape Dutch. [ 2 ] Afrikaans author Brian Du Toit [ French surname as the Afrikaans peoples are significantly descended from French Huguenots ] notes on page 1 of his book: [ 3 ] The Boers in East Africa: Ethnicity and Identity that quote: [ The Boers had a tradition of trekking. Boer society was born on the frontiers of white settlement and on the outskirts of civilization. As members of a frontier society they always had a hinterland, open spaces to conquer, territory to occupy. Their ancestors had moved away from the limiting confines of Cape society to settle the eastern frontier. In time this location became too restricted, and individuals and families moved north across the Orange River. ] (End quote). The term Boer [ which was shortened from Trekboer ] [ 4 ] was used to describe the pastoral Afrikaans speakers who occupied the eastern Cape frontier during the era of VOC administration at the Cape. While Boers might also occasionally have referred to themselves as "Afrikaners" this was meant as "Africans" as the Boers considered themselves Africans quite early on & cut all ties to Europe back in the late 17th cent [ 5 ] when their Trekboer ancestors trekked away from Colonial society & out of the Western Cape region. The problem is that during the late 19th cent the Cape Dutch began to start calling themselves Afrikaners [ after a language rights movement some of them started in Paarl on the Cape Dutch frontier & the documented capital of Afrikanerdom [ 6 ] at a time when the capital of "Boerdom" would have been at Pretoria ] & attempting to seek political alliances with the Boers: most of whom were independent in their internationally recognized Boer Republics [ 7 ] - thereby as a result of any such association: seeking to place the Boers under Cape Dutch Afrikaner domination.

This attempt was later successful during the brutal aftermath of the Anglo-Boer War in which 50 % of the Boer child population had died in the British concentration camps & many Boers were chased off their farms & forced to look for work in the cities where they often encountered Afrikaners. [ 8 ] The program of forcing the Boers to be linked to the Cape Dutch [ what the Afrikaner Nationalists called "uniting" the White Afrikaans speakers ] ended up marginalizing the Boers in the process as the Boers are the smaller segment [ 9 ] of the Afrikaans speaking group under such a designation.

Therefore to keep this tenuous Afrikaans coalition together the Cape Dutch leadership [ which ran the Broederbond ] had to appropriate some key events of Boer history like the Great Trek [ which they named as such ] & reformulate it to conform to the Afrikaner Nationalist agenda to secure the British created macro State of South Africa while omitting or minimalizing other key events such as their Trekboer origins & the significance of the Boer adoption of the red / white & blue horizontal tri colour at their first Boer Republics in 1795 while the Cape Dutch dominated Afrikaner Nationalists would adopt the orange / white & blue horizontal tri colour believed to be first used in the region by the Dutch East India Co. Even the inscription "Ons vir jou Suid Afrika" on the cenotaph at the Voortrekker Monument appears to be an Afrikaner Nationalist usurpation of the Boers as it suggests a loyalty to a "South Africa" which was imposed & set up after a genocide against the Boers during the second Anglo-Boer War.

The Boers were not on a "divine mission" to conquer & this ignorant assessment shows the author of the article as a lazy researcher because the cause of the Great Trek was over British Colonial oppression & the constant Xhosa attacks & killing on Boer farms. The Boers debated what to do & initially decided to trek north until realizing the the dessert conditions were too inhospitable then later decided to trek north east into the depopulated [ due to the Difaqane of Shaka ] regions north of the Orange River.

This day is in fact a "day of thanksgiving" to those of Boer & Voortrekker [ another term the Afrikaner Nationalists coined as part of a program to appropriate Boer hist ] descent. The Boers would be commemorating this day even if they had defeated Germans or British as the race of those who were attempting to wipe them out was not a factor.

Furthermore: the Boers reconciled with the Zulus when they exchanged rocks of peace in 1840 & gathered again later in 1866 to stack rocks on the Nacome River in a gesture of reconciliation. [ 10 ] It is a crying shame that the Afrikaner Nationalists had to hijack this sacred Boer event in order to promote their teleocratic agenda because they have left the false impression to the rest of the world that it was about conquest or to the right to control the later emerging macro State of South Africa & that there was no reconciliation. The whole point of this commemoration is about the remembrance of the vow the Boers made with God [ some Boers in fact abstained fearing the consequences [ 11 ] should their descendents break the vow ] for deliverance & to commemorate the date as a Sabbath if He were to deliver them while the later battle they won on the 16th against overwhelming odds is viewed as the fulfillment of the vow.

This article also attempts to portray a false impression with racial income disparity as well because it should be pointed out that the Rapport newspaper noted that 1 million White Afrikaans speakers live under the poverty line now & that this affects the Boer descendents much more as they have traditionally been part of the working class.

The Boer people are a homegrown ethno cultural people who speak a language historians classified as Eastern Border Afrikaans [ named after the Cape frontier where they developed ] - Therefore the Boers are not only under South African occupation since the establishment of the macro State of South Africa in 1909 but - as a result of past Afrikaner colonization since the establishment of the State - are also under Afrikaner domination.

Therefore this New York Times article not only distorts the event in question with their erroneous assertions but they also perpetuate a falsehood over whose history it is as they parrot the propaganda of conflating the Boer descendents with the bulk of the Afrikaner population.

Notes.

1. South African History at History World.

Quote: [ By the 1770s the Dutch nomads have penetrated as far as Graaff-Reinet, some 400 miles northeast of Cape Town. They become known as Trekboers (Dutch for 'wandering farmers'), a word subsequently often shortened to Boers. ]

2. Christianity in Central Southern Africa Prior to 1910. Irving Hexham.

Quote: [ 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. ]

3. The Boers in East Africa: Ethnicity and Identity. Brian M. Du Toit. Page 1.

4. Noted also on the Bowdoin College Page.

5. The Devil's Annexe. A Continent in Agony by Sidney & Shirley Robbins. Page 59.

6. Cecil Rhodes & the Cape Afrikaners by Mordechai Tamarkin. Page 57.

7. The Story of the Boers by C W van der Hoogt. Page 96.

8. Boer / Afrikaner or White: Which are you? by Adriana Stuijt.

9. New Coffins, Old Flags, Microorganisms And The Future of the Boer.

10. This was also noted by Pieter Mulder in an address to Parliament in 2005.

11. The Great Trek. Oliver Ransford. Chapter 9.

Post Script. The history of the Boers is rarely ever told from the authentic perspective of the actual Boer folk.

42 Opinion(s):

Pensioner said...

Ron, great post but I hope you are not waiting for The New York Times to ever publish any article any time soon that shows any bit of sympathy or acceptance of the Boers in particular and the white population of SA in general. If you are, you are in for a long wait.

Anonymous said...

I wonder who owns the NY times. Now, let me guess...........mmmmmm

Islandshark said...

Brilliant post as always Ron!

Anonymous said...

The attacks on the Boer continues unabated (it has never stopped) and they (the NY Times) won't let factual information get in the way of a good story.

One needs to look at who owns the NY Times to get an idea of whom the opposition is.

The fact is that the Boer is the enemy of the globalists, who happens to control the main stream media.

The reason for this is simple and it is because of the extreme Nationalist streak that the Boer has shown time and time again that he possesses.

Nationalism is the enemy of Marxism.

Let me repeat that.

Nationalism is the enemy of Marxism. Marxism cannot exist in a Nationalist society.

This is why the attacks on the Boer continues unabated. The globalists are smart and know that if your enemy is down and if it is a powerful enemy, then you should never give him a chance to regain his feet. They know that you have to keep kicking him whilst he is down to keep him down.

A4

Anonymous said...

Therefore the guilt taps have to remain wide open. Keep the white man feeling guilty and you've got control and any action that could be perceived as having a Nationalist benefit should be attacked.

This is why the NY Times is having a shit fit about something that should not have anything to do with them.

A4

Ron. said...

Thanks. I have been wanting to post this rebuttal since I first read the NYT article. Pensioner: No of course I am not waiting for the New York Times to publish a balanced article - I did note that their hit piece was "predictable" after all. The main point of my post is as a rebuttal to their calumnious article & to serve to educate those who might not know the full story behind this event. The best I can hope from my rebuttal is to set the record straight & hopefully get their attention that their hit pieces will not go unchallenged. Just because the major media still has a lot of power to propagate distortions does not mean that they can or should go unchallenged because if enough people were to challenge them with the facts they would eventually have to relent.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant post mate! This is what I like to read. REAL South African history!

Best post of the year so far. Just bloody great! Adriana Stuijt explained it well as I asked about this very same topic 2 days ago. South African history is being hijacked.

Exzanian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Exzanian said...

Great post Ron. For me, as a South African that was taught primary school history in Rustenburg in the seventies, this article shows how much detail was actually left out in our education then already.

Islandshark said...

I couldn't agree more Exzanian.

Afrikaner said...

This has got to be one of the worst posts of the year. Ron has tried for years to sow divide between the Afrikaners. His “Cape Dutch” as apposed to “Boers” analogy does not hold water. ALL the Boers were former “Cape Dutch”, which is actually a wrong term, seeing that the descendants of the Boers include French (de la Rey), Dutch (De Wet), and German (Mani Maritz) ancestor. Ron has been trying for years to make a distinction between the Afrikaners of the Cape and those of the Orange Free State and the Zuid Afrikaanche Republiek. Fact is that in about 40 years all these “Boers” were former “Cape Dutch” with the formation of the Boer republics. There is only one Afrikaner Nation. Some chose to trek and some did not. When the war with Britain broke out the Cape Rebels were just as active as the rest of the Afrikaners up north. After unification in 1910 the two Boer Republics were reduced to mere provinces of South Africa. Sad but reality. Fact is that in the last hundred years, Afrikaners from the north have settled in the Cape and likewise Cape Afrikaners have moved to Bloemfontein, Johannesburg or Pretoria. These people, their children and grand children have intermarried on such a scale that nobody can talk of “Cape Dutch” or “Boers” anymore. We are all one. The White Afrikaners of South Africa. I will go even so far as to include the Namibian Afrikaners, because I am one of them who settled in the Cape. Some of my other family settled in Groot Marico, Kimberley, Nelspruit and Pretoria. All of them are farmers…i.e. Boers of great renown. They farm with everything from cattle to citrus to avocadoes. These people have intermarried under the Afrikaners from all over the country and their children are studying all over the country, but mainly at Elsenburg, Stellenbosch. Cape Dutch territory. To still make a distinction today such as Ron is making, between “Boers” and “Cape Dutch” is anachronistic, superficial and absurd. There is only one…The AFRIKANERS. I challenge Ron and everyone else who wants to debate this issue with me to an open debate on ILUVSA. It is high time that this question of “Who is an Afrikaner?” be answered…or “Who is a Boer?” for that matter.

Anonymous said...

True or not the Afrikaners in the 1800's belonged to the Dutch Reformed Church while the Boers belonged to the 'Dopper' Church?

The DRC wanted ties with the British so they could make money while the 'Doppers' did not want any ties with the British at all?

True of not the Broederbond started in the 1800's under the name of the BBV under the direction of Janie Hofmeyer who everyone including Paul Kruger knew was a lap dog of Cecil John Rhodes and even supported CJ Rhodes election campaign. If the Afrikaners were anti British why did they support him?

Looking today is it not the Afrikaners who are again much like Rhodes sitting on the lap of the ANC with their deputy minister position?

Exzanian said...

Strangely, Afrikaner, it is you that appears to want to sow seeds of division. No doubt Ron will have a far better rejoinder, but I can say that a careful reading of the article reveals that the points Ron is making here are historical, and in the context of a NY Times misinformation article are:
1) The Boers were not on any "divine mission" to conquer. 2) December 16th is simply a "day of thanksgiving" (not unlike the North American Thanksgiving" (which, ironically, could be construed a celebration of the wholesale slaughter of indiginoeus peoples) and 3) The Boers reconciled with the Zulus when they exchanged rocks of peace in 1840 & gathered again later in 1866.

Whatever remnant of the Boer that survives today, it was very real back then, and surely that cultural memory should be respected for those that choose to identify with it even now?

Anonymous said...

I think Afrikaner's point should be considered more carefully.

Every people has a fragmented history of some sort, not least the "British", a polyglot community if there ever was one, and with a long history of civil war and internecine bloodshed. So while Ron's history may be accurate, and is certainly interesting, I do not think the well-being of the whites in SA (never mind the "Afrikaners") is served, looking to the future, by fragmenting more than is necessary.

You could make a good case, in fact, that the history of the entire sub-continent would have been different if the whites had not fought amongst themselves; take a long hard look at Israel, and what allows it to survive in a sea of intense local AND international hostility. If the whites had acted like the Jews in Israel, there would still be white-ruled entities in Southern Africa right now; and they would be supported by Europe in the face of hostility, like Israel is supported now by Jews everywhere.

But our way is to to prioritize guilt and "morality" over the physical safety and interests of our own people, and to fight amongst ourselves for short term gain, almost at every opportunity. It is all our own fault. We deserve what happens to us, if we cannot unite.

Anon.

Afrikaner said...

@Anonomous 4:29 am

Is that it? Is the difference between Afrikaner and Boer the fact that the one group sings hymns in church and the other group does not? Holy fuck I never knew that. So in order to be a Boer you must belong to the NHK and come from Transvaal. NGKerk members are not Boers…and Freestaters aren’t Boers either. BWHAHAHAHA.

The Dopper Church or the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk (NHK) was constituted in 1856 and only became the state Church of the Zuid Aafrikaansche Republiek in 1860. Before that the Boers were all Dutch reform Church members from the Cape Some who were opposed to singing hymns and were only singing Psalms later found the NHK.

The differences between these two churches are so small that Dominees from the one can also preach at the other. They all come from “Afrikaner Calvinism”.

Do you know how many Dopper Churches there are in the Western, Eastern and Northern Cape? Do you know how many are in Natal, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe and even Botswana? 307 my friend.

Do you know how many NG Churches are there through the entire Southern Africa. Thousands. You just reiterated my argument that there is today no difference between Afrikaners and Boers.

Through inter marriage and migration especially after unification in 1910…They are the same.

The Afrikaner Broederbond was founded in 1918, mainly to look after the interest of Afrikaners and to uplift the empoverished Afrikaners after the Boer war. If these Afrikaners were so against the “Boers” and “lapdogs of the English”, why would they want to help and uplift the poor Boers?

The AB formed ABSA Bank (formely Volkskas), Sanlam (life insurance), Santam (short term insurance), Remgro (formally Rembrandt ltd) and many more to uplift the Afrikaner out of poverty after the scorched earth policies of Rhodes and Milner against the Boer republics.

And yes the Afrikaners wanted to support the Germans in both world wars and did so. In the book by Jochen Mancke called “U-boats and spies in Southern Africa”, this former German soldier now living in South Africa documents how the Cape Afrikaners from the Bredasdorp area and others resupplied German U-boats on the South African coast during the Second World War.

A further sympathy towards the Germans comes from the story of Robbie Leibrandt as well as the Ossewa Brandwag during WW2. Both BJ Voster and PW Botha were members of the Cape division and Vorster was even interned for it. They were also both members of the Afrikaner Broederbond.
http://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv02424/04lv02730/05lv02996/06lv03000.htm.

The Afrikaners used to be extremely anti British.

Afrikaner said...

@Exzanian

Sorry, but I do not see your logic of accusing me of dividing Afrikaners. You are an idiot. Nevertheless, I do not dispute point one that the Boers were on a divine conquering mission, because they were not. I also do not dispute point two, which is that 16 Dec is a day of thanksgiving celebrated like a Sabbath day.

I further also do not dispute point three that reconciliation between Afrikaners and Zulus already took place.

My issue with Ron is that he wants to split up a group of people called Afrikaners and wants to divide them into “Boers” and “Cape Dutch”. Typical divide and conquer techniques and I question his motives. Ron wants to recreate or resurrect the “Boers” as a unique people that still exist today so that they can lay claim to their former Boer Republics. He is unfortunately going about it in an absurd way that just weakens his argument. My point is that through migration, assimilation, marriage, etc over the past hundred years, the Afrikaners are the former Boers and the former Boers are today all Afrikaners. Get it in your head that Ron’s distinction of Boers and Cape Dutch might have been true 100 years ago, but it simply is not true anymore.

The White Afrikaners of South Africa is a distinct group with their own culture, language, religion, etc. They are ONE people. How the hell Ron intends to distinguish between Afrikaners and Boers is a mystery, because the culture the language, the religion is all exactly the same. Like I said, there is only ONE.

The Afrikaners cannot be split up with drunken fantasies of resurrecting Boers and creating of Pseudo Boer History. It is totally absurd to think that Ron is going to pluck some individuals from the Afrikaner community and call them Boers. If it wasn’t so pathetically sad it would be laughable.

eduard said...

Just what one could expect from The Jew York Times. They have being stabbing the "Boere" in the back since the Anglo Boer War.

Anonymous said...

Who fragmented the history of South Africa? The National Party Afrikaners. Why - so that they could control one and all.

I am told that Afrikaans was the language of the Afrikaners and that everyone adopted it in the 1800's. What a bunch of bollocks! Go and look at the history of Afrikaans.

You want morality after safety? You cant have a future without morality nor can you have safety without morality. Morality is the cornerstone of any civilised society.

Its not OUR fault? Its the fault of such short minded and money whores as the Broederbond and their Afrikaners 'higher than though' attitudes.

The Boers and Coloureds have ONE thing in common. The Afrikaners fucked both our history, pride and idenity. You lot have bought no friends even across the colour line. Payback is going to be a bitch.

Ron. said...

Afrikaner: You are promoting a classic distortion because the Boers developed on the Cape frontier AWAY from the Cape Dutch. Quite early on as well as the Trekboers began trekking inland during the late 17th cent. As a result the Boers developed a strong anti Colonial outlook while the so called Cape Dutch were very pro Colonial. Read up on it in the book: Cecil Rhodes & the Cape Afrikaners. Now another horrendous distortion you promote is the notion that the Cape Rebels were Cape Dutch. While there were certainly some Cape Dutch who were part of the Cape Rebels: the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the Cape Rebels were Boers from the northern & eastern Cape frontier. Even author Michael Barthorp notes in The Anglo-Boer Wars that Cape Rebel activity was extremely high in places like Colesberg. Barthorp also noted that the Boers had GREAT difficulty in getting the inhabitants of the Western Cape region to rebel against the British - ergo so much for your "just as active" as the Republican Boers contention. I find it rather exasperating that you constantly assert that the Cape Rebels were not Boers. Theuns Cloete even stated to me in an e-mail that the Cape Rebels were basically relatives of the Boers of the Republics. But you constantly try to advance the Cape Rebels as evidence of strong Cape Dutch participation when in reality the Cape Rebels were overwhelmingly from the Boers of the Cape. You say some chose to trek but you conveniently neglect to note that the vast majority of the Voortrekkers came from the Boer communities of the eastern Cape while the Cape Dutch communities of the Western Cape did not trek. If you look a little closer at the situation you would realize why: the Cape Dutch were quite content with the British Colonial powers [ even Hermann Giliomeé admits this ] while the Boers were very unhappy with British Colonial rule. The Boers & the Cape Dutch were two fundamentally different groups with vastly different political outlooks whose differences were akin to the differences between Canadians [ who were also historically pro Colonial ] & Americans [ Southrons in particular ] with their anti Colonial outlook. The so called Namibian Afrikaners are overwhelmingly from the Boer Nation. Many of them are descendents of those ZAR Boers who went on the Thirstland Trek.

Ron. said...

I have to laugh to see you trying to "educate" myself over the ancestry of the Boers because as anyone who is familiar with my posts knows by now: I routinely point out the French / Frisian / German & Danish origins of the Boers & Afrikaners. Furthermore: term Cape Dutch does not necessarily mean that they are only of Dutch origin as the term "Dutch" was applied in much the same way the term Pennsylvania Dutch was applied to the German descended Amish. The term Dutch once denoted any people who were of Germanic European continental origin long before it became restricted to describe strictly those of Netherlands origin.

Furthermore: no I am not trying to "make a distinction" between people who live in the Western Cape with those who live in the old Boer Republics because many Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners migrated to the old Boer Republic regions in the wake of the gold rush during the late 19th cent & many Boers went to work for the Cape Dutch in the Western Cape after the Anglo-Boer War. I am not in any way trying to "divide" at all because I believe strongly in Boer solidarity & I have never promoted one Boer organization over another. Accusing myself of trying to divide the macro Afrikaans speaking population is ludicrous on its face as any historian will tell you that they were NEVER a united or homogeneous people ever. Accusing someone of trying to divide Afrikaans speakers because the given person supports Boer self determination is tantamount to accusing some of "dividing" Americans because the given person supports Canadian self determination or Southron [ Dixie ] self determination. There is no monolithic White Afrikaans group just as there is no monolithic White English speaking North American group.

I do not point out the valid distinction of the Boers to "divide" them from anything but simply to remind the WORLD that they are under the domination of of macro language group whose leadership has historically & continues to work hard AGAINST Boer self determination. All one has to do is to look into how the Afrikaner establishment organized AGAINST the Boers during the 1940s when Boers were calling for the restoration of their Boer Republics only to be stopped by the Afrikaner establishment. Look how they brutally treated Robert van Tonder ever since he began to call for the restoration of the Boer Republics since 1961. The Broederbond made sure that Boer aspirations for self determination were subverted & did everything in their power to demonize the Boer Republicans.

Ron. said...

Sir: the Afrikaner establishment recognizes a distinction which is the inherent danger facing Boers who continue to put their faith in Afrikaner leaders who only aim to continue to lead them astray & further away from their centuries long goal of self determination. You accuse myself of "diving" but what sense does it make to stand with the Afrikaners & their leadership when they work so hard at preventing the Boers from obtaining self determination. TRP caller Henry Pinkham [ who I am aware that his grand father was an American ] has publicly stated this himself! IE: why stand with the Afrikaners went they work so hard against Boer freedom aspirations. None other than Theuns Cloete stated publicly that the Afrikaans money power [ ie: the Cape Dutch descended power elite ] is a MASSIVE obstacle to Boer self determination.

Therefore sir: the burden in on you to explain to us what sense it makes in pretending as though there is only ONE Afrikaans speaking family when the largest segment of it routinely prevents the smaller segment from obtaining self determination. Understand that I do not accuse the average non-Boer / Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners of purposely preventing Boer self determination [ as they simply have a different historical outlook which has never valued or strove for independence the way the Boers have had to ] & I have absolutely no problem at all with those who wish to join or support the Boers in the struggle for freedom - but let's not be ignorant to the massive Afrikaans political / media & money power which abhors & opposes any form of Boer self determination.

I for one am quite open to a debate concerning this issue & so too is Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio & of the former Transvaal Separatists. He stated that he is wiling to debate anyone concerning this topic on the Right Perspective radio program because he feels those who promote the notion of a single Afrikaner Nation are just agents from the Broederbond / Afrikanerbond. I debated you or someone like you on the African Crisis forum in the past before the moderators cut the debate off & prevented further discussion of this topic.

Viking said...

I agree with what ExZanian says above. Self-identification is what matters here.

There are numerous attempts throughout history to create artificial Nationalisms, why would SA be any different? Britishness, Frenchness, Italianness and Germanness were all constructs, but we don't question them today so much.

Trying to make a "racial" case for Boer/Afrikaner distinction seems a little genetically problemmatic, but to make a cultural one seems entirely valid.
To make that distinction though on the premise of pro-British versus anti-British as I have heard a few do, is also problemmatic however, as is contempt for Afrikaners who stayed in the Cape under British rule. What's the problem with knowing which side your bread is buttered on?

But if someone self-identifies as a particular group because they believe that they are culturally distinct is a part of democracy. It may have suited certain political ends at different times to try to forge a broader identity - and one of those times is probably now, too - but there is probably as much argument for breaking them down as building them up.

Ron. said...

No: It is not a matter of "splitting" anyone up but simply a matter of removing the Afrikaner hegemony / suzerainty / domination over the Boers. Period. The term Cape Dutch is too antiquated to even be resurrected so I
dispute your contention. I find your hollow accusations all rather rich because it was the Afrikaner Nationalists / Broderbond & the National Party in particular that was rather effective a diving the Boer people in order to prevent them form organizing to regain their self determination.

Let's look at this problem from the proper perspective. If a huge group of Quebecois began to colonize the old Acadian region in the Maritime provinces & insisting that all of the local French speaking Acadians are now all [ somehow as if by magic or rather decree ] French Canadians because they share a language & the term Acadian was then suppressed: how can anyone sanely assert that the "French Canadians" are being "divided" just because the Acadians want self determination?! This is the precise problem facing the Boers! The Boers have been colonized by the Cape Dutch [ among others like the British / & now the Bantu etc. ] who insisted that everyone be called "Afrikaners" because they share a language & the term Boer was then suppressed in order to prevent the Boers from reclaiming their old republics.

Therefore: it is not logical nor sane discourse to then assert that some mythical non existent monolithic group is being "divided" when in reality one group is merely exercising its inherent right to self determination against the wishes of the dominant group. You want the Boers to remain tethered to the forces that seek to dominate & control them therefore I question YOUR motives. The notion that the Boers have to be "resurrected" speaks volumes from the ideological position you are coming from because the Boers never went away but were simply co-opted by those who used their history as a stepping stone to gain control of the British created macro State which was imposed onto the region. The notion that the Boers are now [ as if by magic ] suddenly all part of the same monolithic group is classic Broederbond propaganda which was aimed at eradicating the identity of the Boers just as the British had hoped because they feared going to war with them again therefore decided to indoctrinate the youth with the notion that " they are all Afrikaners" now just as the Romans might have once conditioned all whom they conquered as thinking of themselves as "all Romans" now.

Ron. said...

Continuation.

Quote: [ If these Afrikaners were so against the “Boers” and “lapdogs of the English”, why would they want to help and uplift the poor Boers? ]

This was done mainly in order to co-opt the Boers in a political context so that they were not a threat to the territorial integrity of the macro State of South Africa & in order for the Cape Dutch get the required numbers to dominate the political realm against the English speakers. The Afrikaners Nationalists were no longer "lapdogs" of the British [ ergo why the British began to organize against the Afrikaners after initially recruiting them to power. The same will happen against the ANC in the future... ] as they attempted to wrest control of the State from the British but had ultimately underestimated the Anglo financial sector.

The Quebecois & Acadians are ALSO virtually identical in cultural terms as they both speak North American French / are Catholic / descendents from France etc. BUT they have totally different histories just as the Boers have had from the Cape Dutch. Furthermore the dialect of the Boers has been classified as Eastern Border Afrikaans by historians so no not exactly the "same" dialect.

No. It is not a matter of creating a "pseudo Boer history"! Just a matter of allowing it to be told! God Lord: you must have some nerve to accuse others of propagating "pseudo history" when your Afrikaner Nationalist antecedents engaged in PRECISELY this sort of thing in order to perpetuate themselves as a political force. The Boers know who they are: it is not a matter of "resurrecting" them. I find it all rather telling that you claim that I am going to "pluck" individuals as though I have any say or power in the matter & this little rhetorical devise I have just caught you using is a classic propaganda technique spooks & hacks routinely use in order to distract from the actual topic.

Ron. said...

Well I would say that one has lost the plot when the erroneous notion of dividing a non monolithic / macro group starts to overtake the inherent natural right to cultural / national self determination.

Afrikaner said...

OK I have to split my comment in two because I get a message, "Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters".

Ron, I do not know why you put the “Education” in quotation marks because I never said that and neither am I trying to educate you on Boer history. In fact I do not dispute most of your facts up until 1910 unification and the reduction of the two Boer republics to mere provinces of South Africa. The entire South Africa then became a BRITISH COLONY and all BOERS and so called “Cape Dutch/Afrikaners” became British subjects. Not an Afrikaner colony, not a “Cape Dutch Colony…BRITISH. They sang God Save the Queen, had the pound as currency, the imperial system and drove on the left hand side of the road with right hand vehicles all the way up to 1961 when SA became a Republic.

As sad as it was that the two Boer Republics were incorporated with South Africa and all its citizens as well, it is unfortunately “REALITY” and that Ron, is what you need to get to grips with, because you are living in cloud cookoo land having pipe dreams.

You build straw men arguments, repeat yourself and desperately try to ignore my main point. Actually you agree with me on the migration of Boers and other White Afrikaners into South Africa. Your last six posts speak of a fanaticism that ignores the last 100 years of history. That is false, Ron. It is also unrealistic.

If you choose to ignore the last 100 years of history then it speaks volumes for your historical capabilities. After 1910 and for the last 100 years the Boers from Free State and Transvaal have moved and intermarried with Afrikaners from the Cape, Natal and Namibia and vice versa. That is reality Ron and it is the truth. Face it. The two are so tightly interwoven that there is no distinction between Boer and Afrikaner today.

You are still talking about “Afrikaners”, “Cape Dutch” and “Boers” as if we are still in 1902. There is only one group, call them the “Boers”, call them “Afrikaners”, call them “hairy backed rock spiders”, call them “Dutchmen”, call them whatever you feel comfortable with. Fact is that these people in the last hundred years have become ONE people. Today they are called the Afrikaners. The Boers and their Republics are extinct.

Afrikaner said...

And yes the Afrikaners are not all Righwing. The majority is sadly liberal in their political views. That does not make the conservative Afrikaners or “Rightwing Afrikaners” a distinct group called “The Boers” and the Liberals a distinct group called “Cape Dutch”. What utter bollocks.

People like you Ron are unwanted amongst Afrikaners. You are divisive and argumentative. You think that Rightwing Afrikaners are called Boers and liberal Afrikaners are called “Cape Dutch”, yet you conveniently ignore how the Boers themselves fought against each other. You selectively omit to mention that the ZAR actually at one stage invaded the Free State. So Boer against Boer hostilities is not limited to Boer against Cape Dutch. It goes back to the decision to trek or to stay and it has not stopped till this day.

Just look at their churches. There was the NG Kerk (Dutch reform Church), then some decided that it is un-Christian to sing hymns so they started the Neder Duitsch Hervormde Kerk (doppers), Still not content some even more conservatives started the Christian Reformed Church aligning themselves with what was happening back in Holland. Along comes a Dutchmen (real one from Holland) called Dirk Postma and takes some Doppers and some Christian Reform Church Members and starts the Gereformeerde Kerk.

Then the NG Kerk started the NG Sending Kerk ( Dutch Reform Mission Church) for the coloureds and the Dutch Reform Church in Africa for the Blacks…You know, because God has three different heavens with Apartheid shields for Whites, Coloureds and Blacks, and then there are probably also three different kinds of hells with varying degrees of temperature…

There is an age old saying amongst Afrikaners... If you put three Afrikaners together they will start five different political parties and seven different churches.

Ron, believe me, the Afrikaners do not need you to divide them any further. They are quite capable of doing a mighty fine job themselves. Your ignorant arguments adds no vallue.

Islandshark said...

@ Afrikaner - Ron has never been divisive. And if a group of people actually allowed a single person to divide them, it wouldn't say much for the character of the collective now, would it?

You are doing much more damage than you accuse Ron of - now back of and be sensible. You are entitled to your opinions, but stop falsely accusing a contributor here.

Anonymous said...

@Ron,

Dare I ask this question. Siener Van Rensburg spoke of a new free Boer Republic in his visions. Being a Boer in your view did he see that the Boers would be free or did he see the Afrikaners (as some seem to think it means both Afrikaners and Boers) being free?

If being a Boer himself, the Boers are free, what the hell happens to the Afrikaners as a seperate group?

Anonymous said...

Whites can only be safe in SA if they unite, AND if their kith and kin internationally support them. Even then it is not a sure thing, but at least we would have a good chance at security. And, BTW, without white security the whole country is finished.

Anon.

Baskerville said...

I find your analysis spot on, Afrikaner. I have always been baffled by this story about Afrikaners and Boers being two separate groups, thereby implying that history has stood still for the last 100 years.

And no, self-identification is not an option. I can call myself the flying spaghetti monster or Dracula or Siener van Rensburg but I don't expect that to cut any ice with my bank manager.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Afrikaner. Okay, I think it is fair to say that you have had your rant. If you want to take this as a sign of your "winning", be my guest.

I get your point, you want people to view Afrikaners as a single group. I also get Ron's point, that the Afrikaners started out as two distinct groups, some of whom may still classify themselves as Boers.

As for your derogatory remarks when somebody disagrees with your view, these are uncalled for and hardly a sign of somebody that is willing to debate.

Viking said...

@Baskerville
I think that's a valid criticism, and I think ethnicities can emerge as well as diverge, but they can also form larger ones as well.
If the 20th century was the age of Nationalism then it makes sense that people tried to former larger groups but now I think it's more democratic if they break down again, and this is becoming more and more of a trend.
I'm fairly neutral in this debate, because I think people can define themselves whatever way they want, but the argument comes to an end really when someone starts insulting everybody else for no reason.

Ron. said...

Afrikaner: you are deliberately missing the point. The fact that South Africa was a British Colony does not negate the fact that the Boers were colonized by the Afrikaners as well who now had the upper hand as they were / are more numerous than the Boers. I did not say that South Africa got started as an Afrikaner Colony but that the Boers were colonized not just by the British but ALSO by the Cape Dutch / Afrikaners. This is on the historical record [ if not always spelled out specifically ] as it is well known that the Cape Dutch inherited the macro State of South Africa along with some pro British Boers [ like Louis Botha ] due to the fact that the Cape Dutch OUTNUMBER the Boers within the macro South African State structure. Further evidence of the Afrikaner Colonization of the Boers was when the Afrikaners removed the dialect of the Boers from the Parliament [ Theuns Cloete specifically noted this on the Right Perspective program ] & imposed their Afrikaans. The Boers only ever referred to their dialect as "die taal" or Boeretaal. The Cape Dutch / Afrikaners coined the term Afrikaans for the lingua franca which emerged in the Cape. They only sang God Save the Queen until the Afrikaners imposed "Die Stem" which was yet ANOTHER example of the Afrikaner colonization of the Boers. Cloete also noted how "Die Stem is being shoved down our throats" & refuses to "stand up for Die Stem" or for the old flag of South Africa. The Boers had their OWN national anthems & flags LONG before the Afrikaners developed anthems & flags based upon the seizure of the macro State of South Africa. The British actually wanted to colonize the entire State further by bringing out enough English speakers in order to outnumber the entire Afrikaans speaking macro population. But when that plan failed to take off they settled on recruiting the Afrikaners [ whom they were historically close to in the Western Cape ] to be the surrogate ruling power in the region on behalf of the British. I notice that you have quite a one dimensional perspective on this because the British were not the only colonizing force in the region as numerous Cape Dutch / Afrikaners began pouring into the Johannesburg region in the wake of the gold rush whereby their suzerainty over the displaced Boers was more pronounced than it would have been had they remained in & around Cape Town.

Ron. said...

When South Africa became a republic this was yet another example of the Afrikaner colonization of the Boers as this was a nominal [ or as Cloete notes: a FALSE republic ] which was a shrewd political calculation aimed at preventing the Boers from wanting to restore their own republics. I totally reject the notion that it is "a pipe dream" to strive for self determination. Peoples all over the world are increasingly obtaining more self determination all the time though paradoxically as the global elite strive to counter it through their increased global centralization.

The accusation of "straw man arguments" requires PROOF because all I have noted can be easily verified & are documented facts. An odd accusation coming from you who promotes straw man arguments particularly in relation to the Cape Rebels. "Main point"? I did not realize you had a point. The migration & even slight intermarriage of Boers & Afrikaners does not negate the reality that there still exists two main distinct groups.

Just as the migration among peoples within Britain does not negate the continued existence of Scots / Welsh & English as distinct groups. One tends to assimilate into the group one lives among rather than create an entirely new distinct group. Therefore many Boers have been absorbed into the Afrikaners & English speakers & some Afrikaners have been absorbed into the Boers etc. Your assertion of hybridization is an academically lazy argument which papers over on the ground realities. "Fanaticism"?! Are you for real? This coming from someone who propagates & clings to Afrikaner Nationalist "myth-making" [ as Cloete astutely calls it ] with an obvious fanaticism. The fact is YOU are the one ignoring the past 100 years of history because the Boers first tried to restore their republics during the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 then again "in a big way" [ as Cloete noted ] during the 1940s then again since the past 25 + years. You talk about British rule but ignore the role the Afrikaners played & their rule over the region which ALSO worked to prevent Boer self determination. I am afraid that it is you who is ignoring the past 100 years of history because you omit things which counter your mythology concerning an erroneous monolithic Afrikaner group.

Ron. said...

Once again: it is totally irrelevant whether there has been any intermarriage because most of the examples you cite are folks directly from the Boer Nation. You seem to forget that the Boers moved all around southern Africa [ & indeed beyond ] long before the Cape Dutch began to move in limited numbers to the old Boer Republic regions. Furthermore: examples of hybridized Boer / Afrikaners does not negate the existence of Boers & Afrikaners. That is an academically sound fact. Those Boers who continue to identify as Boers should not be made to feel ashamed to do so just because their reality might happen to conflict with your outdated & hegemonic agenda.

The fact of the matter is that most Boers were simply indoctrinated to view themselves as Afrikaners too but convincing a human they are a lion will not make it a reality. Just as calling the colour purple "blue" will not make it so. The Boers were conditioned into thinking of themselves as Afrikaners while there was never any real actual merger with the Afrikaners because not enough time has passed to have merged the two groups in any authentic or comprehensive manner. Theuns Cloete noted that the two have never become one group.

This is because the union of Boer & Afrikaner was only ever political & never sociological as the term Afrikaner was a quasi civil term used to create on paper a mythological monolithic group for the purposes of political domination within the macro State as devised in 1909.

Well well well. I think you have finally tipped your hand here because in your final paragraph you employ well known derogatory terms to describe Afrikaans speakers which causes one to wonder if you even are part of any Afrikaans group you assert to be a part of. The more you write the clearer it is that you have an anti-Boer agenda & often betray a hostility & contempt for the Boer people. The fact that you appear threatened at the prospect of Boer independence speaks volumes.

I never said all Boers were conservative or that all Afrikaners were liberal because the topic is far more complex than that. Numerous liberal Boers see themselves as Boers & numerous conservative Afrikaners do not see themselves as Boers. As a matter of fact the recurring Right Wing attempt at co-opting the Boers is part of the problem preventing the Boers from acquiring self determination. None other than Theuns Cloete noted that the Right Wing "is more dangerous" to the Boers than the Left Wing because the Right Wing pretends to want to represent Boer independence interests only to subvert them time & again. Now you are promoting another straw man argument because I never claimed what you asserted I claimed & neither am I divisive! Good grief if I am "divisive" for just pointing out provable facts than what must you think of the Israel Identity movements which truly have a restrictive definition.

Ron. said...

No. I have never ignored how the Boers have fought each other. I have in fact pointed out the very thing you mention about how Paul Kruger & President Marthinus Pretorius invaded the Orange Free State in 1857 & attempted to annex it to the ZAR. There were Boer civil wars among the various Boer Republics north of the Vaal River. I have included these very points in a Boer time line I created. I am also well aware of & have also pointed out how the Boers were divided along Pretorius & Potgieter camps. Pretorius & Potgieter made amends shortly before they died but divisions among their followers persisted. I am also aware of the Kruger / Joubert split concerning treatment of the Uitlanders. I am not the one dimensional fanatical caricature your attempt to portray myself as. The Boers are known as a fractious people [ though often exacerbated by folks like you who have an agenda to keep the Boers fighting among themselves ] but they always [ by & large ] come together when their common interests are threatened.

The example you cite concerning the church is not as clear as you would like to insinuate because you neglect to mention that the Boers were excommunicated from the Dutch Reformed Church over the Great Trek as the established Church leaders were opposed to it. None other than Adriana Stuijt noted that Dirk Postma was of Frisian origin not a Dutchman. I think your flippant remarks concerning the different churches for non White ethnic groups misses the point of the necessity of those churches for those specific race groups.

What I find bizarre is your ridiculous contention that I am "dividing" anyone [ produce the evidence to back up this point ] all the while your fellow travelers within Afrikanerdom have gone out of their way to divide the Boer people by directing them into so many different groups & organizations that it is mind boggling.

Islandshark makes an excellent point. Which begs a further question: how could someone as obscure & marginal as myself have any effect in "diving" Afrikaners? Think about this for a while. How many Afrikaans people have ever even heard of myself? I am a voice in the wilderness so to speak while you folks have the media / money & academia all behind your skewed assertions.

Anon 12:25. I understand that Siener van Rensburg saw that "his people" would be free again. Remember that he was a Boer & that he specifically said that he sees the "Vierkleur flying again over a free republic". But I am also aware that he apparently had other visions pertaining to the large scale disappearance of Bantus therefore under this scenario it is entirely likely that the Afrikaners & other surviving local White folks would have some form of independence as well. I am not an expert on the topic of the Boer prophet Siener van Rensburg so I can not say for sure other than relate what he prophesied.

Baskerville. History did not stand still but the Boers were never eradicated in a cultural context.

Viking said...

Ron,
The British and Afrikaners were trying to build a nation called "South Africa" that was created in 1901-10 out of a diverse bunch of people including two former pro-German states.
No "co-option" or "colonisation" was required, it was a process that happened everywhere around that time, as larger political entities absorbed smaller ones.
The implication that some nefarious conspiracy was at hand is unnecessary, it's doubtful that one group were trying to oppress the other.
Maybe the one saw the other as "their people"?
South Africa has always been a conglomerate nation. The matter at hand is how to prevent these entities being wiped out in the present time in the face of ANC-nationalism, where you can be South African in any colour you like as long as it's black.

Ron. said...

Viking. I disagree because without the co-option of the Boers South Africa would have split apart a long time ago as it almost did in 1914 with the Maritz Rebellion. This is precisely why the Afrikaners began to work harder at co-opting the Boers & why the British wanted to destroy the identity of the Boers because they knew that a strong intact Boer people who were aware of their ethic identity would pose a significant threat to the territorial integrity of the macro State of South Africa. The co-option of the Boers was made much easier by the fact that most were impoverished after the Anglo-Boer War & flocked to the cities where they were not able to long resist the Afrikaner hegemony & ascension of power.

If you want to stop entities from being wiped out than it makes sense that they should strive for self determination.

The Colonization of the Boers was not necessarily part of a conspiracy but an inevitable [ due to the larger numbers of the Cape Dutch within the general macro State ] convenient political stratagem on the part of the ascending Afrikaners to secure macro State from the English speakers that they inherited. The Boers retained their own organizations into the 1930s which were usurped by the ascending Afrikaner power.

Viking said...

Well, I don't know enough about it to comment on all the issues, but I think it's less the case that the British wanted to destroy the "identity" of the Boers but rather to limit 'their' power, or at least their ability to be a long term thorn in the side.
The biggest problem of the time seemed to be how to unite the English- and non-English speaking whites into some kind of unity.

The War and SA's diversity meant that the usual Dominion solution of creating a federal Union, like those in Canada and Australia, would not have lasted, and so a centralised state emerged in 1910.
The trend nowadays is toward decentralisation, and as you say, that is the only thing that can preserve minorities.

Viking said...

@ "Anon"
No. I deleted the last few.
Anyone is welcome to debate, as long as they do so without 1) stupid insults against everyone and 2) questioning the right of other people to intervene.
Seriously, we have to strive to SOME standards..

Vanilla Ice said...

@Afrikaner. You are entitled to your right to free speech. Go start your own blog. we will not endure your abuse here for the sake of you being able to display your pedantry.

Ron at least takes the time to share his knowledge, and is patient/tolerant enough to engage those that are less informed. I have appreciated his perspective, and have learn't from it.

You, on the other hand, are a total arsehole. You display a knowledge for your subject, yet you are confrontational, intolerant and abusive towards those that are less informed.

We welcome all debate at ILSA, but if it cannot be done in a civil manner, then you will be firmly encouraged to move on.

This thread is now closed to further comment.