Monday, August 03, 2009

Robert van Tonder on Boer Republic Restoration.

The late Robert van Tonder of the Boerestaat Party [ who died on this date ten years ago ] is seen here in the following video excerpt of a 1991 Dutch documentary explaining who the Boerevolk are & where their 3 main former Boer Republics were located. He went on to explain that the politics of the Boerestaat Party which he founded plans on restoring these 3 republics into a reconstituted Boerestaat [ as shown on map ] through democratic means but that President F W de Klerk was refusing to have an election on the matter. The segment ends with van Tonder calling de Klerk an "undemocratic oppressor" for refusing to allow a vote on the matter.

The 3 main Boer Republics were: the Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek [ ZAR ] also commonly known as the Transvaal Republic established on January 6 1857 when the Potchefstroom Republic & the Rustenburg district were slated to join with the Lydenburg Republic & the Zoutpansberg Republic. The republics north of the Vaal River were recognized as independent with the Sand River Convention signed between the British & the Transvaal Boers on January 17 1852 but rivalries split mainly along the Andries Pretorius & Hendrik Potgieter camps delayed the establishment of a centralized government in the region. Both the Lydenburg Republic & the Zoutpansberg Republic refused to join the union over opposition to President Marthinus Pretorius but later joined the ZAR in 1860 [ Lydenburg ] & 1864 [ Zoutpansberg ]. The various republics which constituted the ZAR had various flags but the distinctive & now recognizable Vierkleur flag was adopted on the inauguration [ Jan 6 1857 ] of the new united consolidated republic. The first President of the ZAR was Marthinus Pretorius [ as noted above ] & the final President was the notable Paul Kruger. President T F Burgers tried to bring back the Potchefstroom flag as the national flag of the ZAR during 1874 - 1875 but his decision was overturned by the Volksraad [ Boer Parliament of the ZAR ] when the President was abroad though this Saltire themed flag was retained for a while as the Presidential flag.

The Orange Free State Republic [ Oranje Vry Staat Republiek ] was established on February 23 1854 when the British ceded control of the Orange River Sovereignty during an agreement signed on February 17 1854 which was called the Orange River Convention. This Convention recognized the independence of the OVS Boers. Formal independence was declared six days later & the Republican red / white & blue horizontal tri colour [ as used for the Swellendam & Graaff-Reinet Republics of 1795 ] was hoisted as the first flag of the OVS Republic. The distinctive orange & white striped flag which served as the national flag of the OVS for the rest of its existence was adopted on February 23 1857 on the third anniversary of the Republic. The first President of the OVS Republic was Josias Hoffman & the final President was Marthinus Steyn. The OVS Republic was established between the Orange & Vaal Rivers. The northern part of the Orange Free State was formerly the Winburg Republic.

The New Republic or Nieuwe Republiek or Vryheid Republiek [ Freedom Republic named after the town of Vryheid ] was established in 1884 within northern Natal on land granted to the Boers by a Zulu King named Dinizulu as reward for services the Boers provided him in quelling a British backed rival faction. The President of the Vryheid Republic was Lucas Meyer & one of its founders was Louis Botha. Both personalities would go on to serve as Boer Generals during the second Anglo-Boer War. The Vryheid Republic adopted a Vierkleur flag modeled on the Transvaal Vierkleur but with the blue & green bars switched. This republic was dissolved around 1887 - 1888 when the British annexed the south eastern portion [ as they did not like the Boers having sea access ] & when the north western portion was incorporated into the ZAR / Transvaal Republic. This area was later absorbed into Natal after the second Anglo-Boer War.

30 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Good post Ron. The idea would not work today. The only hope today for an autonomous region for the Boers/whites would be the Cape only.

Ron. said...

I would disagree with you because large sections of the Boer Republics could be restored tomorrow if enough Boer people were determined enough to pursue this but they would first have to resist the constant brainwashing that they are not "entitled" to their own republics. Let's take a few important things into consideration. Robert van Tonder was struggling virtually all alone for at least a decade & a half [ ie: from 1961 to about the late 1970s ] before his call to restore the Boer Republics began to catch on again - though unfortunately not to the same point as it was during the 1940s where at least 300 000 to perhaps as high as 500 000 people were calling [ demanding ] for the restoration of the Boer Republics. Perhaps van Tonder was even among those folks from the 1940s who simply did not give up the goal while others had. I have noticed that he was sure one determined fellow who stuck to his principles through decades whether they were popular or not.

Another very important point to remember is that the Zulus of northern Natal STILL to this day recognize Boer land claims to the region where the Vryheid Republic was established & these Zulus even stood up in 1985 - after Robert van Tonder was openly ridiculed by the so called conservative political parties there for mentioning this historical fact - to tell the National Party that indeed Robert van Tonder is right "we did give part of northern Natal to the Boers" but unfortunately this fact concerning the Zulu [ faction ] recognition of Boer land claims is often kept from the Boer people for obvious political reasons. Listen to Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio mention this starting at around the 3:00 minute mark at this video of the first interview he did with the Right Perspective radio program. Ergo: an obvious Boer Zulu [ the faction of northern Natal of course ] alliance could lead to the restoration of at least some form of the Vryheid Republic tomorrow or at least a lot sooner than the Boers could ever get back the other Boer Republics.

Consider also that the Sand River Convention & the Orange River Convention were recognized by numerous OTHER countries around the world as the Boer Republics were internationally recognized. This fact could go a long way in helping to restore at least some portion of the old Republics. When the rest of the world realizes that the Boers in fact have LEGITIMATE claims to the region in question [ a fact often suppressed as the Boers are not even well understood as a people at all ] & a legitimate right to restore the republics which were STOLEN from them & FORCED into macro State: the momentum will swing irrevocably in their direction. Just as it did for the folks of East Timor & the Baltic States. Granted it would take time but the momentum would grow [ as it in fact is right now ] & shift in their direction. Furthermore the Boers are not interested in obtaining Johannesburg [ where the vast majority of the non-Boer & non-indigenous Bantu population lives ] & are quite willing to grant independence to the local Sotho / Venda / Tswana peoples just as van Tonder's proposed Boerestaat map showed. No wonder the Broederbond tried hard to suppress & discredit him so much.

Anonymous said...

The two examples you quote, the Balkans and East Timor involved years of bloody conflict. I don't think it's a question of the Boers being recognised as an ethnic group, if pushed, the world, the UN would concede that fact but the question would be, do we carve up a country that does not want to be carved up so we can give some to the Boers?

No. The ANC will never concede an inch to the whites or anyone that stood with them. As for the people living within, what does one do with them? The whites will always be outnumbered and so the issue is one of viability. We need an area within the borders of SA which is largely unpopulated by the non-white groups and contain most people willing to join an new state. That would be the Cape only and even with that it would be very difficult.

I'm afraid, the will is not there amongst most whites, so we are left with the status quo or pack up and leave.

Ron. said...

The only part of the Cape which holds any promise as a possible future Boer or even White sustainable independent enclave would be in the Northern Cape due to its sparse population. And its distance from the major cities like Cape Town or Johannesburg hence away from the direct clutches of the financial powers who are opposed to Boer independence self determination. A major problem with the Western Cape would be Cape Town [ paradoxically as it is quite a nice looking & relatively less crime ridden place ] & its establishment cliques which would create lots bad press at & pour lots of money against independence movements struggling for the independence of the region.

The Eastern Cape is the homeland of the Xhosa & the Western Cape is home to the Cape Coloureds & the Cape Dutch descended Afrikaners who by & large disdain any sort of independence movement & have never wanted freedom or even had a notable freedom struggle in their past.

Therefore the Boer people are only ever going to regain their independence [ which they have not had since 1902 ] if they are able to restore at least some portion of their old Boer Republics [ as was close to happening within the Western Transvaal in 1994 before that suspicious fiasco in Bophuthatswana ] or to start afresh in the Northern Cape were they could build up a Boer majorities or Boer populated enclaves rather fast.

Anonymous said...

I agree, the most viable region is the northern Cape which contains a percentage of coloured people who are not exactly overly enamoured with the ANC either.

Ron. said...

No I was referring to the Baltic States not the Balkans. The Baltic States: Estonia / Latvia / Lithuania were able to regain their independence from the Soviet Union when there was a SHIFT in popular support for the goal. That was my point: once a critical mass is achieved there is not much which can reverse it. When enough Boers demand their republic back not much will be able to stop it. The Boers almost got their republics back in the 1940s before the Afrikaner establishment organized & broke it up. The book Separatism: Democracy and Disintegration. by Metta Spencer on Page 53 states the following.

[ When Robert van Tonder - a White South African who believed that the "sacrificial partition" of that country was necessary to create an all Boer state, argued that his movement's quest "corresponds exactly" with the demand of the Baltic separatists. ]

Hence even Robert van Tonder saw the similarities between what the Baltic separatists wanted to what the Boer separatists wanted. The Baltic States were stolen from the Baltic peoples in the same way that the Boer Republics were stolen from the Boer people & the Baltic peoples ALSO had large non-Baltic populations living among them just as the Boers now have large non-Boer populations living among them but this can be sorted out through negotiation.

Viking said...

whatever way you look at it, you wouldn't be restoring some old states but creating new ones. There seems to be some scope for this in the constitution.

Anonymous said...

I misread that, I understand the history of the Baltic states but the Balkans are not unlike the Boer scenario either. Perhaps when critical mass has been reached and people are fed up may we find the will but I can honestly not see how it's going to happen any time soon, if ever, especially in light of how the world perceives the whites of SA (not very sympathetic). It will be a case of going it alone if it is to happen and force will be needed.

Ron. said...

The ANC is just a regime [ & a pathetic puppet one at that ] which could [ theoretically ] be replaced tomorrow. Then what happens to your anti-ANC / anti-regime Coloureds? They become pro Statists - particularly if a regime is elected which purports to take their interests into consideration. One must look at the BIG picture & realize that this mega / macro / corporate State monstrosity known as "South Africa" will have to go allowing the various people to form their own collectivities more atuned to their particular interests & desire for self determination. Wasting time on opposing regimes of a mega State which should NEVER have even been created is a total distraction because as soon as one becomes too unpopular: the financial interests just trot out or co-opt ANOTHER regime while the people go back to sleep until another regime becomes too unpopular. Just like a controlled roller coaster.

Viking said...

why should it NEVER have been created? Instead of trying to turn back history, better to try to carve something worthwhile out in the present. In that case, the WC is a better anti-ANC stronghold and a more viable independent state.

Ron. said...

The notion of Boers just being a bunch of "whites of South Africa" has always been a monumental misnomer & a very misleading label because the Boers are not just some generic White group wandering aimlessly about in search of an identity as they have had to undergo tremendous sacrifice due to being aware that they had a unique identity tied ENTIRELY to the African landscape. Neither are they just "South Africans" because this macro State was created by the British Empire soon after killing off close to 50 % of the Boer child population. Folks like Greg & lots of Westerners often scoff at this due only to their ignorance of Boer hist: but the Boer people are in point of fact an indigenous African tribe or rather nation which just happens to be mostly of Caucasoid extraction & have paler skin. When the Boers are referred to or dismissed as "whites of South Africa" it lumps them in with a whole DIFFERENT sort of group.

Anonymous said...

@ Thread...

All very interesting, but no-one has mentioned the obvious.

The Boers are a stoic people, a lot like the spartans of old. Life under the munt is still comfortable enough and has not yet got bad enough for him to do what is required to establish the Free Boer Republic. I wish that I will live to see that day. I'm just glad that I am not a liberal or a black when it does happen.

Ron. said...

Great point anon. The Boers are a long suffering people & tend to put up with quite a lot. But only to a point of course. Though many of them are not so comfortable at all as they are hit the hardest with new discriminatory laws. Some of them are indeed taking steps which could one day lead to the establishment of a free Boer Republic. But so far not in the same massive numbers as movements of the past.

Viking. The macro State of South Africa should obviously never have been created in the first place because it REVERSED the autonomy of the main ethnic / national groups in the region. Remember: prior to the British invasion there existed a "balance of power in the region" [ as noted by the Country Studies Project at the United States Library of Congress ] between the various main ethnic / national groups. IE: the Boers were independent within their Boer Republics / the Xhosas were independent in Xhosaland / the Zulus were independent in Zululand thereby creating a rare but important political stability in the region.

When the British annexed Xhosaland to the Cape then later annexed Zululand to Natal then later still annexed the Boer Republics & then joined them to their British Cape & Natal Colonies: what they did was to created imminent racial / ethnic tension & political instability because all of the various conquered groups within this new macro state would of course want their freedom or independence back.

The first thing which happened was the creation of the South African Native National Congress by an American educated Zulu named John Dubé in 1912 just two years after the formal creation of the Union aka the macro State. Remember that this organization was later hijacked by Xhosas & changed its name to the ANC in 1923. Hence: the first backlash to this monstrous macro state / union was the creation of the ANC which would ultimately inherit the entire State [ leading to ANOTHER "minority rule" of Xhosas mainly from the Transkei over the WHOLE of the State ] as the latest surrogate Colonial regime after a long struggle against the previous surrogate Colonial regime known as the National Party government.

The next thing which happened was the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 which was essentially a Boer uprising against the State & an attempt at restoring the old Boer Republics.

Ron. said...

Then the next thing which happened was that the formerly pro British Cape Dutch Afrikaners began to propagate the term Afrikaner onto ALL White Afrikaans speaking folks [ particularly from the 1930s on ]in a concerted attempt at preventing another Boer secessionist or Boer Republican uprising to ever happen again by getting them accustomed to the notion of joining them in attempting to take over control of the macro state but effectively only as a continued but more covert surrogate Colonial power for the more overtly British Colonial puppet regimes they would replace in their rise to power.

Therefore now as part of the middlemen power management apparatus: the White Afrikaans people including the anti-colonial Boer people would now get the blame [ unjustly ] for the unavoidable & inherently Colonial / centralized features of the macro State & would receive opprobrium around the world for simply being ensnared into the macro State [ & its unavoidable & inherent excesses due to its greater capacity for centralization ] that they never even wanted in the first place & even fought two wars of independence against [ the Anglo-Boer Wars 1880 - 1881 & 1899 - 1902 ] & lost a generation of children in the concentration camps in the process.

The macro State is the prime executive apparatus [ laws are just extensions of the state ] for the continued oppression of its peoples: only now the colour of the surrogate Colonial regime & its primary victims has changed or reversed but most of the current State oriented misery traces back to that fateful establishment of the macro state or union: unitary state which lumped in such a diverse amount of previously independent ethnic groups & nationalities. Not that there would not have been any ethnic strife if the macro State had never been illegitimately imposed onto the region [ with an act of British legislation ] but that it would have been FAR LESS WRENCHING than it was as the State was the crucible which served as the pressure cooker & exacerbated tensions which would have been far less volatile & much better managed if everyone could have retained their sovereignty or independence within their formerly sovereign national lands.

Viking said...

Thanks for the summation
"The macro State of South Africa should obviously never have been created in the first place"
'Should' doesn't come into it, particularly when it comes to past events. Even without the creation of the "macro state", the Xhosas, Zulus, etc would never have stayed in their 'independent' zones and the Europeans would never have passed up the opportunity of cheap labour.

The British even imported thousands of Chineses and Indians to avoid this but in the end the population bowed to the inevitable influx of Africans.

It is fascinating to explore the 'what ifs' of history but nobody can base a future on it for South Africa.

I would like to know why you draw such a stark line between "Boers" on the one hand and "Cape Dutch Afrikaners" on the other. This is an artificial distinction, as ethnically these are the same people. The only difference between their collective experience - and in this case we are talking about very short periods of time. The Boer republics only existed for a single human lifetime.

Ron. said...

No. The distinction between the Cape Dutch & the Boers is FAR from "superficial" & is at the CRUX [ but not the only problem ] concerning how the actual Boer people have been routinely subverted. It is clear from your comments that you think that the Boers must have come from the Cape Dutch & that the Boers only existed as Boers in their republics. This appears to be a common misnomer to those who have not examined their history as close as I & others have because I have noticed that other people have also erroneously presumed that the Boers & Afrikaners were the same people some even thinking a split only happened during the Great Trek. Looks like the Afrikaner Nationalists hid the truth about this for obvious political reasons but in fact the Boers have historically been a SEPARATE & distinct entity from the bulk of the Cape Dutch Afrikaners.

The Boers are the people who were formed on the Cape frontier starting in the late 1600s & throughout the 1700s all at a time when the numerically larger Cape Dutch were forming in the south western Cape.

The Boers are the descendents of the Trekboers: the impoverished nomadic pastoralists who lived in the wagons in which they traveled & often adopting a lifestyle borrowed from the Khoisan in order to survive the harsh Cape frontier when the Cape Dutch were living comparatively more affluent & urbane lives within the south western Cape. When the Great Trek happened: the Boers had already been a distinct people [ whom Professor Wallace Mills notes considered themselves distinct even form the Cape Dutch ] for well over 150 years. Historians also classify the Boers' dialect of Afrikaans as Eastern Border Afrikaans further demonstrating their distinctiveness from the Cape Dutch folks.

Ron. said...

There is enough evidence to conclude that the Boers are a distinct ethnic group to the Cape Dutch because for one thing the Boers are descended much more from the Frisians who were brought to the Cape & even more interesting & noteworthy is the fact that most of the Germans who were sent to the Cape ended up settling STRAIGHT to the north eastern Cape area: the region where the Boers & their dialect developed.

Now you might be tempted to think all of this makes no difference now as some have intermixed & so on BUT when one considers the fact that the Boers are numerically SMALLER to the Cape Dutch then you can start to see why the Boers' aspirations have been routinely hijacked by the Afrikaner leadership. All one has to do is to look at how the Afrikaner establishment has routinely destroyed & often co-opted & subverted Boer aspirations. To quote Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio: " We are being told (that) we're Afrikaners & that has been our death"! Please listen to the various interviews he did with the Right Perspective because this is one Boer Patriot who really knows his history quite well & understands quite well the problematic dynamic of conflating the independence oriented Boers with the Cape Dutch Afrikaners.

The confusion between Boer & Afrikaner stems mainly from the indoctrination of the 20th cent which conditioned Boers into believing that they were Afrikaners too even retroactively calling Boer historical figures "Afrikaners" when they only ever referred to themselves as Boers. The concerted popularization of the term Afrikaner was part of a political program aimed at dispossessing the Boers of their inheritance & destroying their own identity by making them believe that they were part of the Cape Dutch / Afrikaners too so that the leadership of the latter could better control & subvert the former under the rubric of a term which was essentially only ever used as a geographic term prior.

Ron. said...

The experiences & outlook of the Boers has always been markedly different from that of the Cape Dutch / Afrikaners even often to this day where the Boer descendents are STILL far more conservative / often religious & independence oriented than the cosmopolitan Cape Dutch descendents. There are essentially two White Afrikaans speaking groups in southern Africa [ as many Boer guests & callers to the Right Perspective Radio program have stated ] as it was only the propaganda & "myth-making" [ to use Cloete's term ] by the politicians of the 20th cent which made us believe otherwise. I first woke up to this about ten years ago when upon doing my own research into the Boers I learned of the Trekboers & had my first insight into this often not well understood reality that the Boers are in fact a distinct ethnicity even from the Afrikaners & have been since almost the beginning of White settlement at the Cape - certainly for over 300 years now. To learn more I would recommend the following.

The Noted Distinction of Boers from Afrikaners. From my own blog: a collection informative quotes from a range of eclectic notable personalities who have noted this important distinction.

Boer Afrikaner or White: Which Are You? Adriana Stuijt's great & informative analysis on this.

The Right Perspective first interview of Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio. This knowledgeable Boer Patriot talks about Boer history in detail on the 150th anniversary of the Vierkleur flag.

Hope this clarifies things.

Ron. said...

Furthermore: it should be noted that the vast majority of the Voortrekkers came from the Boer communities of the eastern Cape & not from the Cape Dutch communities of the Western Cape. [ Even during the second Anglo-Boer War most of the Cape Rebels ( those who fought on the Boer side ) were Boers from the northern & eastern Cape. ] Therefore the reason why the republics they founded later were called "Boer" Republics was entirely due to the fact that they were founded by the Boers who had trekked into that particular region.

The Cape Frontier: Birthplace of the Boer Nation. The latest post at my blog from a few weeks ago pointing out where the Boers are from & where they developed into a people / folk.

Boer Afrikaner or White: Which Are You? Fixed link as it was broken in the previous post.

The Boers are not Afrikaners. Or rather they are not part of a unitary or single White Afrikaans group.

Viking said...

point taken.
So which group was at the ideological forefront of the National Party and its ideas?

Ron. said...

The answer to this question serves as a good summarization of how the Boers were co-opted & dominated. The National Party was run by the Cape Dutch but often invoked a truncated / formulated & controlled version of Boer history to achieve its goals. All N P Prime Ministers were of Cape Dutch origin [ or in the case of Verwoerd actual Dutch origin ] with the notable exceptions of Hans Strijdom [ who began to talk about considering restoring the Boer Republics before dying in office ] / P W Botha [ who was of course one of those who identified as an Afrikaner & fully served that agenda to the point of being hostile to Boer secession ] & F W De Klerk which is rather interesting considering the growth of the Boer independence movements under their tenure because I have noticed that even in Canada they will tend to have very pro Canada French speaking Prime Ministers when the Quebec separatist movement gains support. Due to the fact that the Cape Dutch descendents are more numerous than the Boer descendents: the Cape Dutch & its general leadership will dominate political discourse & in the process also dominate [ & even often erroneously lay claim to ] the Boer Nation.

Anonymous said...

I must tell you Ron, I'm learning something new. Nice thread.

Viking said...


I suppose it also explains why Boers are so much darker than Cape Afrikaners. I hadn't considered it before.
But what evidence is there for Frisian and German ethnicity amongst the minority group? Had someone studied this?

Ron. said...

The Frisian roots of the Boers & lots of White Afrikaans people in general has been noted by none other than Adriana Stuijt [ who should be familiar to folks who frequent this & other blogs ] who has personally investigated this topic as she lives in Frisian region of the Netherlands & has accessed or obtained documents which note the Frisian roots. Here is an excerpt from one of her posts posted in African Crisis.

[ Date Posted: Tuesday 02-Oct-2007.

I have personally investigated the roots of at least five major Afrikaner-Boer families here in Northern Europe.

For instance the Postma family originated in Dokkum, in Friesland -- and the first south African Postma was Durk, who was not only the founder of the Dutch Protestant Church in South Africa and the university at Potchefstroom, but also was the first forefather of the last Afrikaner-president President F W de Klerk. He therefore has very strong Fresian-religious roots.

Living here in Dokkum I have found the tiny house where Durk Postma, the forefather of F W de Klerk as well as of Robert van Tonder, was born.

The Postma family is very dominant in the Boer descendants of people such as the Van der Walts, the Steyns, and others who still are members of the Protestant church to this day.

The Van Tonder family -- Robert van Tonder for instance, was the founder of the Boerestaat Party -- is another case in point: they are not only the direct descendants of Durk Postma through his grandmother, but also the first Van Tonder forefather, a miller -- who came from the small fishing village of Denmark called Tonder and is a village where the Fresian language still is heard to this day.

This Van Tonder, as did most working-class Dutchmen, did not have a surname, so when he signed up with the VOC in the Cape of Good Hope, the official named him after the town he had been born in. For years, researchers believed that the Van Tonders were named after "Tongeren' which is in Belgium, however the documents from the town of Tonder have since proven that this miller had signed up for the VOC from Tonder.

The Oosthuysen/Oosthuizen families also descend from a fishing village called by that name, which lies in the West-Friesland area of The Netherlands. At the time when the first Oosthuysen, Pieter, was dumped onto a VOC ship as an indentured labourer, the inhabitants of this fishing village were still Fresian-speaking.

There are many similar examples where one can find the Fresian roots of Boer forebears. However, the Dutch language spoken by the masters of the VOC have always hidden the fact that most of their labourers came from regions which actually were Fresian-speaking. Tonder now is in present-day Denmark, but just like many northern German towns today, Fresian was their first root-language. Indeed Fresians who travel between North Germany and Northern parts of Holland often have no difficulty in communicating with one another and they also often have identical cultural affinities which tie them together as one family. The German-Fresians have borrowed more words from the predominant high-German language their cultural identity is being overwhelmed with. ]

End of excerpt.

Ron. said...

The following was posted by Stuijt in the discussion forum at Stop Boer

Quote: [ The first settlers from Europe at the Cape of Good Hope were not "Hollanders" as ( a third party poster ) describe them today - on the contrary, most of these workers indeed even spoke with completely different accents than their elitist masters who came from the trading city of Culemborg, Antwerp and Amsterdam.

The Dutch VOC company settlement was not a government enterprise, it was never a formal "Dutch government settlement", instead it was a private commercial enterprise which was owned by elitist Dutch and Flemish investors: in fact it was the first such private shareholder-company in the world and the Amsterdam Stock Exchange grew from this first capitalist venture.

However the crew the VOC brought along to work in the gardens were, for the most part, except for their famous botanist Wageningen, indentured farm boys from the entire trading region of northern Europe: people who spoke an earlier version of what is called Fresian today and who lived all along the Northern-European coastline, skilled farmers who spread their wings even into the baltic regions. These hardly were what was later described in the formal version of the Afrikaner Broederbond's history as "volunteers-workers who keenly signed on for this new adventure".

These workers instead were what the Marxists today would have termed "unpaid peasants" -- and they came from Denmark, North Germany, even as far afield as the Germanic-speaking regions of the Baltic, whereever the VOC traded.

The reason the VOC got these poor farm boys to "sign on" in the first place, was because one of its wealthiest investors and landlords had "poldered in" (created new land from) a huge inland lake called the Beemster near Amsterdam. This had rendered entire fishing communities homeless and destitute within five years when their fishing resource disappeared.

Those local communities, such as Oosthuizen and Volendam had no say in the emptying out of their valuable fishing resource. They had put up a spirited defence of their own, repeatedly cutting open the dikes which were taking away their chances of any future survival. Those who were caught doing this were most severely punished by the local authorities.

The reason I write this, is because those young farm boys and indentured labourers who were then shipped to Cape Town therefore already had a very healthy disregard for all authority --and were often most severely punished by their Dutch overlords such as the elitist Van Riebeeck, even for the slightest mistakes.

Anyone reading this odious little man's pompous diary will come to the conclusion that he saw this small group of "Dutch" farm people at the Cape as his enemy, people who "did not even speak his own tongue". These workers were indeed treated so dismally that they preferred facing the intense dangers of the wild African hinterland to trying to keep doing the bidding of the VOC elite.

The fact that the Dutch government allowed this massive abuse of this small group of workers to continue was only due to the fact that, as is usual with Dutch governments over the centuries, they preferred protecting their all-important trade routes to the Indonesian spice islands - and a few unhappy Fresian peasants weren't going to stop them. ]

To be continued.

Ron. said...

The following is the rest of Stuijt's post.

Quote: [ I have researched the large body of available Dutch documentation pertaining to the emptying out of the Beemster Polder and found this to be most valuable in trying to understand the events at the Cape of Good Hope at the time of the first settlement.

One must unfortunately examine and re-examine all these formal histories which were written by the Afrikaner Broederbond 's historians such as Herman Giliomee throughout the apartheid era -- as I most certainly have found these to be very much slanted towards the Afrikaner-elitist viewpoints of history.

I will be happy to provide a list of original documents which can be researched in this regard. ]

End of quoted post.

The link to the post was found at: but it appears to be gone now & I was not able to locate an archived version at Internet

This all makes perfect sense because the VOC would have been much more able to exploit a poorer "second-class" ethnic group.

Ron. said...

Concerning the matter & assertion of Boers having much more German roots: this stems from the fact that most of the total German arrivals [ who came over a 150 period ] settled directly to the north eastern Cape region - where the Boers developed. Therefore this would suggest convincingly that the Boers should be much more of German origin. Though Germans were brought out from the start as a Canadian Professor named Wallace Mills notes the VOC took German folks out to the Cape in the most numbers.

Quote: [ VOC servants (they signed on for long terms, often 20 years) were recruited from various parts of Europe, especially Germany; they were very rough. ]

Looks like the truth about the full ethnic origins of the Boer people & the Afrikaners in general too has not been fully exposed or even investigated due mainly to the obscuring of the actual ethnic roots of the first arrivals. While the French Huguenots & lots of Germans have been documented & noted it is clear that other ethnic groups were simply hidden under the Dutch designation.

Viking said...

It makes perfect sense when you think about it. Colonial powers nearly always used their rural outlying citizens to colonise, both because they were better farmers and because it kept their numbers down and prevented revolts. There were far more Scottish than English settlers in Ireland, for example, for the same reasons...

Anonymous said...

The division of SA.Well,this is something the WHITE administration is to be blamed.They gave up EVERYTHING for.....nothing.They betrayed the white population of the country and forced a great amount of South Africans to emigrate.Those brave who stayed suffer every day.Again.I myself being of Greek descent ( my family settled in Cape Town in 1890s ) left SA shortly before the Apartheid ended.It wasnt so difficult to predict what was going to happen.I had the chance but i would return back to a white SA republic the next day.The Cape province should have been the new White South African state.They had the opportunity.They decided to just give up the power to the blacks.The Rhodesian example wasnt enough for them.

Anonymous said...

@ anon 8:31, indeed, everything you say is true.